Josh

In my experience, Gemini deep research is not very corrigible, it's like a bulldozer that eats a gargantuan amount of papers, but is quite hard to steer, and you have little visibility A few specific pain points: - It doesn't seem to differentiate well between low-quality and high-quality sources, which I suspect is a major driver of the few hallucinations I've seen - It's good for literature reviews, but poor at flagging epistemic uncertainty, when you're on the frontier of knowledge, you need the tool to tell you "this is contested" or "evidence is thin here," not just confidently synthesize everything flat - Last time I checked, it was impossible to copy the output with citations and links intact, which should be straightforward to fix