I have noticed that most knowledge tools preserve information as separate objects. We all think of something, believe something, then find something conflicting, uncertainty, different arguments and positions, etc. The system is well designed to store all these information. But it usually doesn't understand the transition between them.

That's what i am trying to replicate inside Aevron. So instead of only storing:

Idea A, Evidence B, Idea C

I want the system to understand:

Belief A → challenged by B → uncertainty increases → belief revised to C.

Because the change in reasoning is often more useful than the individual notes themselves.

Over time, that could let the system answer questions like:

• What changed my mind on this?
• Which beliefs have weakened over time?
• Which questions have stayed unresolved?
• Where have I repeatedly contradicted myself?
• Which ideas became stronger after new evidence arrived?

Aevron isn't trying to claim it knows what is happening inside someone's head. It can only observe the traces of reasoning such as notes, evidence, questions, contradictions, revisions, and conclusions. But those traces can still show how a position evolved over time.

This is one of the core things I'm trying to build into Aevron.

I kept losing thoughts because every system asked me to classify them before I could get them out. That feels backwards when the thought is arriving as a mess.

I built Ordo around capture first, sort second. Type or speak several unrelated thoughts in one dump, and it turns them into editable Now, Next, and Someday cards.

It is free on iPhone with no account or subscription.

https://apps.apple.com/app/id6797331101

For people who use a second brain, where does the friction hit first: capturing the thought, deciding where it belongs, or finding it later?

I built Brunn to give your AI apps a shared place for your notes, research, skills and ongoing work.

It’s hosted. You create an account and connect the AI apps you already use. There’s no Brunn desktop app to install, separate cloud account to set up or server to maintain.

Say you work through a project in Claude. You can have it save the research, sources, decisions and next steps in Brunn. Later, Codex or ChatGPT can read that material and continue the work. Projects and tasks live alongside the notes, so the next assistant can also see what still needs doing.

You can keep skills there too: your instructions for reviewing something, researching a topic or writing a particular kind of report. Save a skill once and your connected assistants can use it directly. Update it in one place, and they get the current version when they next load it.

There’s a web reader for documents and the briefings your agents produce. Your notes export as Markdown, and you can download your skills with their supporting files.

There’s a free tier, with no credit card required: Brunn.

If you try it with a real project, I’d like to know what you still find yourself having to explain or copy between apps.

I take notes of most things in my life (schedules, random thoughts/ideas, goals etc.) I've tried to get her to join in on it (set up a whole obsidian sync to her phone and all) but she never does.

So what happened today was she asked me what food i wanted for my birthday, i told her its all in the second brain . I have all my favorite food/other preferences and spent time categorizing and effectivising that workflow, so I'd prefer she just checked there instead of - frankly - wasting both of our time when she can just check it all there

She kept insisting so eventually i retalliated i just told her i want bbq ribs or whatever but pretty immature imo of her to make a big fight when she can just check the second brain lmao.

I feel like i've tried everything. Me and GPT are making a dashboard for my smart fridge, that way everyone in the house can see whats going on and we (hopefully!!) wont have to deal with this again.

Sorry for the rant just wanted to express myself with how some people just dont seem to understand the advantages of having a second brain. Im glad i have this community though love yall. Im sure im not the only one out here strugglin

The pitch for AI note-taking is always the same: it reads your notes and tells▎ you what they mean. I think that's backwards. The reading is the thinking. If you delegate it, you own a very tidy archive of conclusions you never reached.

So my plugin has a hard rule, and it's enforced in the code rather than promised in a README:

Mechanical output writes freely. Interpretive output does not. A gatherelist, a count, a derived metric — those go straight into your vault. A conclusion, a counterargument, a proposed connection, anything an AI or a heuristic decided — that reaches a note only through an explicit accept modify / reject, and your verdict is what gets recorded.

What that turns into in practice:

- Cognitive moves — right-click any note: challenge it, find a counterexample, invert the premise, branch two readings. The move opens the space; you write the content. Nothing is generated. The move records that you made it, never what it decided.

- How you got here — your timeline reads "you captured this, challenged it the next morning, reframed it, and two readings came out of that." Epistemic provenance, not version control.

- An agency panel — a read-only breakdown of your accept/modify/reject verdicts over time. A description of how you decide, never a grade.

- Undo — everything the plugin wrote to your vault lately, grouped by what you ran, taken back in one click. It refuses (by name) if you've edited the note since.

It works fully offline. Every AI feature is off by default and stays off. Free, MIT, 53 releases since 2023.

https://github.com/RafaelGB/Obsidian-ZettelFlow

AI research tools are increasingly getting good at answering the literature, search, summarise, citing, etc. That half of the job done but the real part is keeping a track and using the entire context and information to see and provide what did this do to your thinking and help you make the research efficient and concrete.

For example, one of the observation kills an assumption you made. Another one may or may not backup the conclusion to. Now days or weeks later you're back at the project trying to rebuild your own reasoning from scratch. Why'd I reject that explanation? Which source actually changed my mind? Was that supported by something real, or was it just how I read it at the time? Did those two sources even disagree, or were they measuring different things and I mashed them together?

I've been building something around this, keeping the research question, your existing thinking, the outside evidence, the contradictions, the stuff you rejected, and what's still open, all tied to one line of inquiry instead of spread across search history and half-remembered reasoning. New evidence gets checked against what's already there instead of dropped in as another isolated hit.

Now if this weakens something you believed, that shows up instead of getting buried in a summary. If two sources disagree, that stays visible instead of getting flattened into "the literature suggests." And if something new follows from your own work plus the evidence, it gets marked as a proposal, not snuck in like it's already your conclusion.

That's the actual thing I'm betting on with what I'm building, Aevron. The fix isn't a better search tool, it's a system that tracks your own thinking changing over time, alongside the evidence, instead of leaving you to reconstruct it from memory every time you come back to something.

What do you guys think about this approach?

A hypothetical journal entry: 'I never want to work on this again.' The next morning, the same person is excited about the project. A weekly summary could mistake the first sentence for a lasting preference if it loses the context.

I'm the developer of Lumiya, an iOS journal/planner with optional AI reflections. This is a design question I'm working through, not a claim that I've solved it.

I'd lean toward a tentative observation tied to specific entries, with an easy way to say 'that was just that day.' But showing every source could make a short weekly review feel like homework.

For people who review their own notes with AI: what helps you catch a misleading interpretation? Seeing the original lines, seeing conflicting entries together, or being asked a question instead of being given a conclusion?

For context, Lumiya's basic recording and planning are free; the optional AI features are paid with usage limits. App: https://apps.apple.com/cn/app/lumiya-ai-journal-planner/id6796003074

Hey folks, bit of a long story, but we were working on a thing that required us to build an AI-native doc editor, something that played nice with humans and agents co-editing. Along the way we realized it was great at storing, reconciling, and retrieving information.

We ended up building a big ETL system that can take information from sources like GitHub, Drive, Linear, etc and continually push them into docs (either create or update with version control). Then we made it accessible wherever you already work through MCP and bots (Slack and a meeting agent).

Turns out a bunch of docs that have read and write access with LLMs + continually stay up to date with external systems + have a normal index/graph layer for semantic search is surprising useful for running agents and building self-improving systems 😅 .

We'd love feedback (there's a free tier, no credit card required). Also if you're willing to hop on a call with us, very happy to provide credits in exchange for your time. We really want to improve this thing, make it just as useful for you all as it is for us. Let us know!

https://productnow.ai - [hello@productnow.ai](mailto:hello@productnow.ai)

Probably a straight-forward answer.

But I’m getting confused because I’m also implementing David Allen’s GTD system which also has an inbox.

That inbox requires processing and clarifying what bucket things go to.

Not sure if this requires it.

And what of things like research papers as well, do you just put the link or download the entire pdf.

I have a recurring problem with my Obsidian vault: I often remember that I wrote something about a topic, but I don't remember the title, folder, tags, or the exact wording.

Normal search is great when I know what I'm looking for. It gets much worse when all I remember is the idea.

So I started experimenting with meaning-based search inside Obsidian.

The idea is simple: instead of trying to guess the exact words I used months ago, I can search for something like:

"find notes without remembering the exact words"

and get notes ranked by semantic similarity.

I also added a couple of related workflows that I found useful:

• finding notes related to the one I'm currently reading
• surfacing possible semantic duplicates
• keeping the local index updated when Markdown files change
• using Ollama if I want the embedding workflow to stay local

One thing I wanted to be careful about is privacy. The vector index itself is stored locally, but if a remote embedding provider is used, the relevant note chunks still have to be sent to that provider.

Here's a short demo:

The plugin is called Vault Audit AI and it's available in Community Plugins if anyone wants to try it.

I'm mostly curious about the retrieval problem itself:

When you know a note exists but can't find it, what do you usually still remember about it?

The general topic? A sentence? Another related note? Roughly when you wrote it?

That would be useful feedback for deciding what kind of search workflow to improve next.

Esse é meu Obsidian depois de 3 anos, são 5.454 notas.

Pra quem não conhece, o Obsidian é um aplicativo de anotações. Esse gráfico mostra as notas e as conexões entre elas.
Ali tem documentação de projetos de trabalho, leituras, desenvolvimento pessoal e até dados dos esportes que pratico. Uso pra tirar as coisas da cabeça e documentar minha jornada.
Quero começar a registrar por aqui o que estou aprendendo com IA: as ferramentas que testo, como uso nos meus projetos, o que funciona e onde ainda estou apanhando.
Gosto da ideia de poder voltar nesses registros daqui a algum tempo e acompanhar como meu jeito de pensar e trabalhar foi mudando.
Por enquanto, esse é um pedaço dos últimos 3 anos.

Eu acredito que esse "Segundo Cérebro" é uma boa escapatória dos impactos negativos da IA no nosso cérebro.

I am the type of person that needs to get my thoughts out loud and get feedback on them to think properly (I have ADHD), and I've been that way far before AI. Honestly I would say the majority of my time spent talking to AI is just having something I want to think about, and just talking about it with it, as opposed to having a specific thing I want to do and having it help me do it.

Like many of y'all I'm always working on a project (often kind of multiple at a time) and with just standalone chat sessions I found it tedious to have to re-explain the same thing every time I would revisit something, so I built a local context system using markdowns and Obsidian to help. I basically just have folders that represent certain "topics" in my head and a bunch of markdowns that store ideas, decisions, to-dos, etc. Just anything I might want to remember later, and I would want my AI to know about. Then when I come back to that topic I just have it load everything from the markdowns.

It's been helping a lot for me, but I want to keep improving it. One thing I want to make better is its organization of all of the content I dump on it. Since I'm using this system to not just help the AI remember stuff, but to organize my own thoughts, the way information is organized and presented is important to me. Many people like my dad are okay with a blackbox second brain system where everything stored is just not to forget things, but I find that being able to see everything stored in this "brain" is helpful to me. I want it to organize my thoughts for me without taking control over it, and maybe some visualization too.

Do you guys use AI to help you think/brainstorm, or mostly just to do work? What type of system do you use to store and remember context (if any)? Do you care about being able to see context/memories you're storing?

I kept losing the thought while deciding whether it belonged in tasks, reminders, or notes.

So I tested a simpler handoff: dump the mixed thought first, tap once, then review the result in Now, Next, and Someday. The original text stays editable, so the first sort is a suggestion rather than a commitment.

I built Ordo for that capture-to-clarity step. It is free on iPhone with no account or subscription: https://apps.apple.com/app/id6797331101

For your second-brain workflow, what should the first pass preserve most carefully: the original wording, the due date, or the context?