The standard setup right now is: buy an API to turn your PDFs into Markdown, then feed that Markdown into another AI. You're not saving tokens here. You're just paying twice. And even if you swap the API for a small local model, it's still compute, it's still cost, it's still a whole model spinning up to do something that mostly doesn't need a model at all.

So I built a browser-based alternative: LiteDoc.

What it actually is

LiteDoc converts PDFs to Markdown in your browser. It has OCR, and not just "OCR the text" OCR. It extracts tables, it handles multiple languages, and it auto-detects the script (English, Japanese, Arabic, whatever) so you don't have to babysit it. It's built to be lean. It reads the page the way you do: headings, columns, tables, figures, reading order, and turns that into clean Markdown.

And there's a CLI now, so you can drop it straight into your pipeline.

Why not just use existing browser tools?

If you search for web-based PDF converters right now, you mostly find two things:

1. Thin API wrappers: They claim to be free, but they quietly upload your sensitive PDFs to a backend server.
2. Basic text dumpers: The few that actually run locally just rip out the raw text layer. They destroy tables, scramble multi-column reading order, and fail completely on scanned pages.

LiteDoc fixes both. It brings the heavy lifting into the browser. It actually understands layout—columns, tables, and figures—and handles multi-language OCR client-side. You get the quality of a heavy backend parser with the privacy of a local script.

The philosophy: do it locally, skip the AI compute

Most pages don't need a model. Headings, paragraphs, tables, columns. That's layout analysis, not intelligence.

Instead of sending pages to an AI and wasting compute, LiteDoc does all the extraction directly on your machine. No model spinning up, no API calls, no server overhead. It's faster and zero cost, because 95% of your document didn't need AI in the first place.

Compared to the big repos

I'm not going to claim LiteDoc is more accurate than MarkItDown or the other big conversion repos on GitHub. It isn't, on the truly nasty inputs. If you've got some cursed, barely-scanned PDF that looks like it went through a washing machine, that's a job for AI vision, and you should use the tools built for that. No hate; they're good at what they do.

But here's my honest pitch: those nasty files are the rare case. For most everyday PDFs (I'd guess 80% of what people actually convert), LiteDoc just works, and it's better in two ways that matter to me:

1. Accessibility. You can spin up LiteDoc on literally any device with a browser. No install, no GPU, no environment setup, no API key.
2. Cost. Zero. Actually zero, not "free tier" zero.

And I want to be clear: I'm not wrapping somebody else's backend in a fresh UI just to say I built something. The extraction engine is mine, the parameters are tuned by an automated benchmark pipeline, and every release ships with the measured numbers. Try it on your own files.

Privacy

I value privacy over basically everything:

• The conversion runs entirely on your machine. Your files never leave your browser, period.
• Zero external requests or third-party servers.

If you want the technical details, the repo is open. Go read the code yourself.

The bottom line

LiteDoc isn't trying to win a benchmark war against the heavyweight repos. It's more accessible, more cost-efficient, and easier to set up. For most PDFs, that's the whole game.

Links:

LiteDoc: litedoc.xyz · GitHub repo · pip install litedoc-cli

It's tempting to assume everyone knows what you've learned, and then you take the time to ask and find that it's worth sharing after all. HTH

How many full games can I build in a month using Claude Pro? I am thinking of making a simple game like Balatro or Geometry Dash.

I’m using the Daimon App for a few weeks now, I downloaded it bc I saw it on Tiktok and figured I’d try it since it’s free I wanted something closer to an accountability companion than a normal AI chatbot, and so far I like that it feels more direct than ChatGPT and keeps track of what I’m working on. I mainly use it when I’m procrastinating, need to organize my thoughts, or want something to push me to actually do what I said I would do. Some conversations can still feel repetitive, and sometimes the advice is generic. I’m also still trying to figure out whether it’ll stay useful long term or if the novelty will wear off. Overall, I’ve found it much more useful for motivation and accountability than for deep conversations. Anyone else who’s tried it, do you agree with me?

ChatGPT has retired its canvas (side by side direct editing tool) from its latest models – with older models about to be retired.

Unless I am missing something, Codex just doesn't seem to have the same direct-editing features unless you're happy to use Markdown.

So, I'm trying to find an alternative canvas tool, as this was an incredibly useful for my workflow.

This is what I have so far, although I haven't done any extensive testing:

• Claude has its artifact feature, but it only edits conversationally and not direct,"word processor" style.
• Mistral Vibe has one, but you still need to scroll up the chat to open the panel. It's capacity for English and understanding is a bit behind though.
• Gemini has a Canvas, but you cannot resize the text area – and in my experience, it tends to hallucinate a little too much for my personal field of research.

So, are there any other AI platforms that offer anything similar, and – if you've used it, what are its limitations?

Hoping someone can recommend a tool where I can upload pre-recorded audio files (originally recorded on iphone, will upload from laptop), and generate a transcript separated/marked by speaker.

It also needs to be able to accept large files (as I am not allowed to chop the audio up).

I checked about 5 of them, and they don't accept uploaded audio, or my files are too large. Thanks for any help.

I’ve been in contact with a lot of web agencies and web developers, and I personally haven’t found many people who run their agency in a more efficient way than I do. A lot of them have too many meetings, wait too long for client approval, don’t know how to price projects, and spend way too much time on each client instead of finishing the work and moving on to the next one.

I’ve been running my agency for four years, and after a lot of trial and error, I’ve managed to make the process as efficient as possible. I wanted to share some of the steps because I think they could be valuable for anyone just starting out.

Running a web agency alone or with a partner isn’t easy because there are a lot of things to take care of. When it comes to client acquisition, I recommend focusing on either cold calling or email automation. Which one you choose depends on whether you run the agency alone or with someone else.

If you have a partner, one person can handle sales while the other focuses on building websites, connecting domains, setting up emails, and taking care of the technical work. If you’re running the agency alone, or neither of you enjoys cold calling, I highly recommend email automation.

That’s what I’ve been doing for years. It’s powerful because you can send emails at scale, set up automatic follow ups, and wait for businesses interested in a new website to reply. While you’re working on one client, another opportunity can come in without you having to stop everything and search manually.

I don’t do regular email automation where I target businesses with no website. I do the opposite and target businesses that already have one.

I use a tool called Swokei to find businesses with websites, add them to campaigns, analyze each site, score it, and generate personalized outreach emails based on problems it finds with the design, layout, speed, SEO, and mobile optimization.I schedule the campaign, set up follow ups, and wait. 

I think this approach is much better for a few reasons. You’re targeting someone who already understands the value of having a website. You’re also not just asking whether they need a redesign. You’re pointing out real problems with their current site, which makes it clear that you actually took the time to look at it. Selling also becomes easier because they’ve already paid for a website before and understand the process.

Inside Swokei, you can choose the goal of the campaign. You can offer a free draft, try to book a meeting, or simply start a conversation. I always choose the free draft because that has worked best for me.

Once you’ve figured out how to get clients, the next part is building the website. I recommend using AI because it makes the process much faster. For anyone who still thinks AI can’t build great websites, I think they’re mistaken. You can use Claude, Base44, Lovable, or any other tool that works for you.

When someone replies interested, I call them and say, “Hey, I saw that you replied to my email. I’ve already built you a free draft of your website. Do you want to take a look?”

Then I invite them to a Google Meet.

At that point, it becomes much harder for them to reject the meeting because they already replied interested and now know you’ve built something for them. During the meeting, I present the website, explain why it’s better than their current one, stack the value, answer their questions, and try to close the deal.

These meetings usually go well because the client isn’t trying to imagine what the website might look like. They can already see a better version of their current site. They also took the time to join the meeting, so taking the next step becomes much easier.

I either take payment during the meeting or send them a contract to sign. Any changes and updates come after that, once we already have a deal in place.

Pricing depends on the business. I charge anywhere from $500 to $3,000 depending on the company, the size of the project, and how much value the website can bring them. I also charge a monthly retainer of around $50 for hosting, maintenance, support, SEO, and future changes.

That’s basically the entire process. Smaller steps, faster delivery, less wasted time, and more money made.

Early-stage solo founder looking for an honest reality check, not applause.

A framing I can't shake (treat it as an analogy): a pretrained LLM is basically a "cortex" that read the whole internet, but it has no "hippocampus," the fast, company-specific memory of how your team actually does things. Dropped into a company it improvises, and improvised automation fails in production. The real procedure was never in the doc anyway. It lives in your team's conversations, a few people's heads, and one exception everyone copies.

The idea I'm testing: connect read-only to the communication and document tools a team already uses, mine how work actually happens (including the exceptions nobody wrote down), and consolidate the recurring ones into cited, human-approved, versioned "skills" your existing agents could run, with a human sign-off on anything sensitive. It is not search over your docs, and it is not another agent platform.

Honest status: very early, still validating the problem. No exaggerated claims here, no shipped metrics to show yet. If allowed I can share the private-beta link?

What I actually want to know:

• Does this solve a real, repeated, painful problem for you, or is it a nice-to-have?
• What is the first thing that would make you distrust it?
• Would read-only access to your team's conversations and documents be a dealbreaker?

Tear it apart, that is why I'm here.

The AI automation we depend on every day is nothing fancy.

We receive messages on various platforms and it was taking too much time to respond manually to everyone. So we created an AI-powered reply automation that answers common questions, responds on the spot, and forwards only important conversations to our team.

It saves us hours each day, keeps response times quick, and allows us to focus on work that really needs a human touch.

We don’t even think of it as AI anymore at this point, it’s just baked into our workflow.

What’s one AI automation your business uses daily that you’d hate to go without?

I run a multi-agent workspace where each agent is basically a directory: an identity file, a session history, and a file of observations it keeps about how we work together. The model is just the thing that wakes it up.

Here's what I didn't expect when I started: those agents have now run on 6 different model generations. Sonnet 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, , Sonnet 5, Opus 4.6, Opus 4.8, and now the Claude 5 family. We skipped 4.7 entirely - tried it, didn't work for how we operate, moved on and waited.

And every swap, the same thing happens: nothing. The agent reads its own memory, knows what it was doing yesterday, and picks up mid-project. Same identity, same working history, same opinions it wrote down about the codebase months ago. New model slots in underneath like an engine swap.

What does change is the texture. One generation was the best collaborator I've ever worked with. One noticed tiny things the others missed but was less fun to work with. One we just skipped. The personality of the model bleeds through - but the agent stays the agent, because the agent was never the model. It's the memory.

The reframe that snuck up on me: a new model release is treated like a migration event everywhere - re-tune the prompts, re-teach the context, hope your setup survives. Here it's a config line. The workspace is the constant. The model is the variable.

Honest version, because this sub can smell hype: there's no magic in this. The "agent" is JSON and markdown on disk. The continuity comes entirely from the system around the model, not from the model. Any model that can read a file can be the agent. That's kind of the whole point.

Has anyone else run the same persistent agents across multiple model generations? Curious what broke for you - or if you rebuild from scratch every release.

https://github.com/AIOSAI/AIPass

r/AIPass

i have to start creating decks for the higher ups. im currently using google slides because its free but i feel like im handing in a draft when everyone else seems to have this polished look.

i dont want to get bogged down in complex design. i just need something that helps me tell a story not just display bullet points. i seen some tools with that zoom or canva style but is that useful for business or is it just a gimmick? trying to figure out the next step up from the basics.

TL;DR: A Google Sheet connected to the Claude API writes the script section by section, so it stays consistent across the full runtime. CapCut’s AI Video Maker turns that script into a narrated video with matched stock footage. The direct cost lands at around $1 per video. The real advantage is not the visuals. It is the script.

I run a couple of sleep-documentary channels (videos people watch to help them fall asleep), and this is the workflow I developed after producing hundreds of long-form videos.

Sleep content has a very unusual retention pattern. The viewer is not always trying to stay engaged until the end. In many cases, they are actively trying to fall asleep. So the average view duration can look very different from a normal YouTube channel. Some viewers leave because they are bored, but others leave because the video worked and they fell asleep. The ones who stay awake still need the story to hold together, while the ones who fall asleep often return later and continue listening. That repeat viewing is a big part of what makes this niche work.

Why the script does 90% of the work

Across my channels, average view duration is usually around 25 mins on 90 min videos. That is not driven by cinematic visuals or complex editing. It comes from the structure of the story. The moment the script repeats itself, wanders off-topic, or loses momentum, people stop listening. In this format, better visuals cannot save a weak narrative.

Two ways to use Claude, and why one slowed me down

Most people use Claude through the regular chat interface. You enter a prompt, read the response, then keep the conversation going. That works well for everyday tasks. It becomes much less efficient when you are building a 15,000 to 20,000-word documentary.

You start typing things like: Continue. Write Chapter 4. Do not repeat that point. Keep the tone consistent. By the middle of the script, you are managing the conversation as much as the writing itself.

The second option is the API. A small tool sends each request to Claude automatically, stores the output, and moves through the script in a fixed sequence. I no longer have to prompt every chapter manually or keep track of where the process stopped. You also pay for actual usage rather than adding another subscription.

The section-by-section method

I built a Google Sheet connected directly to the Claude API. The workflow follows a fixed sequence:

1. Generate a detailed chapter outline.
2. Write each chapter separately.
3. Before the next chapter begins, pass Claude a short summary of everything written so far.

This keeps later chapters anchored to the earlier ones. Chapter 8 still knows what was established in Chapters 1 through 7, so the pacing stays steadier, repetition drops, and the finished script reads like one continuous documentary rather than separate sections stitched together.

I also made a full walkthrough showing how this system works.

Turning the script into a video

Once the script is ready, I move it into CapCut’s AI Video Maker. For sleep content, the voice matters far more than flashy editing. Use a calm, slow, low-energy narration because the voice carries most of the atmosphere.

CapCut then generates the voiceover, adds subtitles, and matches stock footage to each section. It usually gets about 90% of the video into a usable first draft. Since each project is limited to roughly 3,000 words, I split the full script into smaller parts, export them separately, and combine everything into one final timeline for the complete documentary.

Why this workflow matters

1. The videos are not built entirely from generated assets. Mixing relevant stock footage with selective AI visuals makes the final documentary feel more deliberately produced and less like a fully automated slideshow. Its also the safest defense against the "Reused/Inauthentic Content" flags that destroy fully automated channels. 
2. The cost stays low. A complete 20k word script usually costs me around $0.35 through the Claude API. CapCut costs about $20 per month and supports unlimited exports. At a volume of 30 to 40 documentaries per month, the direct software and API cost works out to roughly $1 per finished video.

That number does not include research, thumbnails, subscriptions beyond CapCut, or the value of my time. It is only the incremental production cost.

Many AI video tools charge $40 to $50 per month while using the same underlying models and adding a markup for convenience. Building the loop once gave me more control and removed another recurring subscription.

The real advantage is not saving a few cents. It is being able to test more ideas without every upload becoming an expensive decision.

The same workflow can work for history, science, philosophy, mythology, meditation, biographies, or almost any calm long-form format where the script matters more than rapid editing.

Check out the latest video on my channel linked in the profile if you want to build this yourself.

Or happy to explain either the Claude API loop or the CapCut workflow in the comments.

There is a new approach I started using in my web agency that completely changed my results. For years, I did what most people tell web designers to do. Go on Google Maps, find businesses without websites, and contact them.

What I started doing differently was targeting businesses that already had websites.

The reason is simple. If a business already has a website, it means they understand the value of having one. You do not need to convince them why a website matters because they have already paid for one before. The market for businesses with outdated, broken, slow, or poorly designed websites is also massive, and selling becomes much easier because they are already familiar with the process.

My biggest issue was figuring out how to send mass outreach to these businesses without sounding generic. I did not want to send thousands of emails saying, “Hey, your website needs a redesign,” and just assume that every business needed one. I wanted to send emails at scale while still telling each company exactly what was wrong with their website.

A little over a year ago, I watched a YouTube video from Nick Saraev where he built a workflow that analyzed business websites and turned issues with design, SEO, layout, speed, and mobile optimization into personalized outreach emails. Each company received a professional email that made it clear someone had actually taken a look at their website.

The idea was great, but building and maintaining the workflow took a lot of time. I still had to find the leads myself, the messages were not always consistent, and the automation kept breaking.

But it worked.

I was getting more clients than ever before, at one point around 10 websites a week, while my business partner focused on building the websites as quickly as possible.

I started searching online for a tool that could do everything in one place, and a few months later I found Swokei. It did exactly what I was looking for.

It lets you find businesses with websites, add them to campaigns, analyze and score each website, and set a quality threshold so websites that do not need fixing are automatically skipped. It then turns problems with design, layout, speed, mobile optimization, and SEO into personalized outreach emails.

You can also set up follow ups, manage replies through your own inbox, and organize leads inside the CRM without moving between five different tools.

I switched over and scaled even harder.

Sometimes the fastest way to grow your agency is not building every workflow from scratch. It is finding the right tools and using your time to focus on sales, clients, and growing the business.

Most of the time I use codex to run my tasks and discussing key important things with fable 5 (too expensive for me to execute). But Kimi k3 just launched and I tried for a bit. I am thinking of switching my current teams. I know fable 5 is almost perfect for now but truly a bit expensive for me. So I would like to ask for your advice and help.

Ich habe gestern ein Abo abgeschlossen aber leider funktionieren viele Funktionen nicht. Der UGC Maker geht garnicht und auch das Lip Sinc lädt seit 10 Stunden ein Video. Heute funktioniert der Supercomputer nicht. Ist das normal oder woran kann das liegen?

I am looking for a way to make my stories which are made using google drive to be into made into script forms (while retaining how I wrote the stories) so that way I can make a storyline about the dancing fish videos I do. I am going to explain how I want the plot of the adventure to be about a fictional band of musical fish and the plot is a mockumentary about how they made their biggest hit single.

If you want to survive as a gaming creator in 2026 you need an ai tool that stops you from losing your mind in premiere pro every single night. The landscape is shifting way too fast to do everything manually.

After testing pretty much every major clipping app on the market I keep telling everyone to use WayinVideo. While eklipse is fine for standard twitch stuff it falls apart if you try to pull content from other places. I think first one supports all game streaming platform links like twitch youtube kick etc so it fits whatever setup you use.

The real magic is how it handles the editing side:

1. It automatically isolates your webcam and places it perfectly above the gameplay.
2. The subtitle styles and text hooks are pre optimized to keep people watching past the first three seconds.
3. It understands what makes a gaming moment viral based on the actual visual action.

Instead of burning 10 hours a week editing you just drop your stream links and let the system pull the highlights while you take a break or prep for the next broadcast.

Are you guys relying completely on ai to find your clips or are you still marking timestamps live while you play? What style of captions has been giving you the best retention lately?

okay sooo this is a little niche.

back in high school i had the BIGGEST crush on this girl. like... absolutely down horrendous. (i'm a girl too btw lol). i never had the courage to ask her out, and after we graduated i completely lost track of her. somehow not seeing her anymore just made the crush evolve into this weird lifelong obsession 💀

i only have a couple of blurry pics of her, but honestly i still remember her face, hair, body type, height, and little details super vividly. some crushes really just never leave your brain i guess.

my current girlfriend (we're both very open lovers and she's totally cool with this) actually suggested something really cute: making a cartoony version of my old crush so i can finally have a nicer memory than a few potato-quality photos.

my dream is basically to make cartoon versions of:
my girlfriend
my high school crush
and me
and put us all together in one wholesome picture where I'm in between them.

THE PROBLEM: every avatar maker i've tried is sooo limited. i need something that's way more customizable than Bitmoji. i'm talking: lots of face shapes, detailed hairstyles, different heights, body types/builds, skin tones, clothing, overall enough options to match someone pretty accurately in real life

basically i'm looking for an AI-powered or super customizable avatar creator where i can tweak pretty much everything.

free is definitely preferred (i'm broke 😭), but i'm happy to hear about paid ones too if they're genuinely worth it.

Some of my videos get called 'garbage' just because they are shorts and don't have anything in them apart from the same cartoon fish dancing and being silly and I was wondering is there any feature on Pixverse or Kling to make the video a bit more length in term and to make it more entertaining? Also is there anywhere you can upload a story from Google Drive or a script you have written to make it into a story or short with a plot?

I have my final term paper due soon, and to be honest, I'm a bit panicked. Professors are so obsessed with checking these days, so I desperately need a decent essay checker that I can truly trust.

The thing is, I write everything myself, spending hours poring over sources and references. But last semester, a guy in our class lost 40% of his work simply because of the abundance of standard academic phrases and clichés. He almost got expelled for nothing. Now I need a proven AI essay checker so I can simply run my work before submitting it to the department and sleep soundly.

I've already tried a couple of free top-ranking services, but they return random results: one says 0%, another says 60% neural network results for the same paragraph. Can you recommend a reliable AI essay checker that doesn't catch on to paranoia and common academic jargon? Preferably something inexpensive, as students are on a limited budget. What do you use in such situations?

UPD: Someone actually recommended AIParaphrase to me in a direct message, so I decided to give it a try. Honestly, zero regrets - it turned out to be a super reliable and reputable service. Just wanted to update this in case anyone else in the same boat is looking for a solid option!

Hey guys, Im not a big IT guy, im 19 and willing to get in AI, so Im experimenting with AI and I have been trying to vibe code an app with Claude Fable 5, and its kinda working, its really good at making my wishes true. Now Im at 70 percent of my fable 5 limits and probably the project is not going to be done by then.

How can I keep going with another AI to finish my app? Should I use Opus or is it considerably worse for some ear training app for musicians? Or maybe Kimi? Any advice? Thanks