Read AI, the fastest growing AI meeting assistant, ever, delivers real-time transcription, smart summaries, and enables AI search and discovery across
Unfortunately, the user reviews and social mentions provided do not contain any feedback specifically about "Read AI." Therefore, there is no information available on its main strengths, key complaints, pricing sentiment, or overall reputation from these sources. Further data or direct references to "Read AI" would be needed to generate a meaningful summary.
Mentions (30d)
39
28 this week
Reviews
0
Platforms
2
Sentiment
0%
0 positive
Unfortunately, the user reviews and social mentions provided do not contain any feedback specifically about "Read AI." Therefore, there is no information available on its main strengths, key complaints, pricing sentiment, or overall reputation from these sources. Further data or direct references to "Read AI" would be needed to generate a meaningful summary.
Features
Use Cases
Industry
information technology & services
Employees
96
Funding Stage
Series B
Total Funding
$81.0M
Pricing found: $0, $15, $19.75, $19.75, $22.50
why cant i delete my acc😭
submitted by /u/DlCKH34D [link] [comments]
View originalWow so analog clocks are their kryptonite.
I heard several AI engines have issues with reading analog clocks, so I tried. And here we are. submitted by /u/Ejay222 [link] [comments]
View originalAnthropic-SpaceX deal seems much larger than previously reported
I was reading SpaceX's prospectus which just dropped. Seems like it has some additional info about the Anthropic-xAI deal on p. 13. Anthropic is paying SpaceX 1.25B/mo for some unspecified amount of capacity between Colossus 1 and 2. Colossus 1 we've previously known about, Colossus 2 seems new. Well, this seems like a much bigger deal than was originally reported 2 weeks ago? 1.25B/mo is 15B/year, which is almost half of Anthropic's ARR even after it exploded in Q1 this year. Also seems like Anthropic is likely paying a pretty hefty premium for this compute. Based on Colossus 1 GPU counts and going off of Nebius pricing, Colossus 1 should rent for about 6.4B/year, and that's on-demand pricing from a provider to a rando, a proper long term contract should be a lot cheaper. A couple weeks ago it seems like people were guessing the deal was around 3-5B/year for Colossus 1, which seems about right. Imo, they're probably getting a smaller chunk of Colossus 2 because Colossus 2 provisioning to Anthropic was previously unknown xAI is training Grok 5 on Colossus 2 right now per the prospectus Colossus 2 seems to be mostly not finished yet Which means Anthropic is likely paying a hefty premium for this deal. Probably shouldn't surprising given how axed they clearly are for compute, this is well reported. That amount of money would also explain why Musk would do a 180 on Anthropic so quickly... submitted by /u/Lanky_Golf7687 [link] [comments]
View originalThe Hybrid Method: how I split tasks between the chat (Claude.ai) and a background agent (Claude Code)
After a month of running this daily, I've settled on what I call the Hybrid Method: keep Claude.ai (the chat) as my only surface, and delegate engineering work in the background to Claude Code. The chat writes the engineering prompt, launches the executor, supervises through the filesystem and git log, and reports back without me ever opening a terminal. The piece I find most useful to share is the **allocation matrix** — which kind of work goes to which engine. Took weeks of measurement to stabilize. **Background agent (Claude Code) handles:** Large refactors across many files Tedious mechanical work (renaming patterns, applying fixes from a list) Anything that needs filesystem + git access without back-and-forth Tasks that take more than ~2 minutes of pure execution **Chat (Claude.ai) handles:** Architecture decisions and tradeoffs Reviewing the agent's diff and discussing the output Sprint planning while the agent runs the current sprint Quick edits where the round-trip to a background process is wasted Anything where the answer needs human reading anyway **The hand-off:** The chat writes a detailed prompt for the background agent (including a fail-fast spec and what to commit at the end). It launches `claude --headless --instruction "..."` as a subprocess via a small MCP bash bridge (~200 lines of Python using Anthropic's MCP SDK; community implementations exist too). Then it polls the git log and a status file every 30–60 seconds while I plan the next thing. When the agent finishes, the chat reads the diff and reports. **Why "hybrid":** The analogy is the hybrid car. Two engines with different load profiles. The chat is electric — instant startup, smooth low-load, great for transitions and decisions. The background agent is combustion — cold-start cost (5–15 seconds while it loads the project's memory file and explores the repo), but sustained throughput once running. They specialize, they hand off, the user never feels the seam. **What changes from running Claude Code alone:** Context-switching cost drops to near-zero — I never leave the chat session Strategic and execution work happen in parallel (the chat plans the next sprint while the current one runs) The chat acts as supervisor — better wired for high-level reasoning than the executor agent which is wired for action **Caveats:** This is the operator pattern Anthropic has documented elsewhere; the specific assembly (Claude.ai web as the chat + an MCP bash bridge + Claude Code as the executor) is what I haven't found written up specifically No sandboxing on personal hardware; if any of this ever runs on someone else's machine, careful sandboxing is non-negotiable The chat saturates beyond ~2 parallel background tasks — past that, the supervision quality drops Curious whether anyone else has converged on something similar, or what variations work for you. submitted by /u/Krycekk [link] [comments]
View originaldata engineering lead + solo consulting on the side. how claude restructured my client work. honest take.
amsterdam. 36. data eng lead at a B2B SaaS day job. side: solo data consulting practice. ~€4,800/mo on the side. 5 active clients. been using claude across both contexts for 10 months. wanted to share what i actually do because most "claude for data engineers" posts focus on coding. the bigger change for me was the non-coding work. what claude does in my workflow. client discovery. each new consulting client gets ~3 hours of upfront discovery. i used to do this in 1:1 calls and take notes. now i record (with permission), claude transcribes and structures. saves me ~90 min per client. i have a clearer picture of their tech stack and pain points than i used to. proposal writing. consulting proposals used to take me ~6 hours each. claude drafts 80% from the discovery transcript. i edit 20%. ~2 hours total now. ongoing client work. when i'm building a data pipeline for a client, claude is the rubber duck i talk to. i describe what i'm building, the constraints i'm running into. claude reflects back questions or alternate approaches. this has caught at least 3 designs that would have been wrong in the last 6 months. client deliverables. every engagement ends with a deliverable. used to be a 14-page word doc. now it's an ai product demo deck (built in Gamma, embedded data visualizations) the client can share with their team. clients keep these for years. project comms. weekly updates to each client. claude drafts based on my notes + git activity. i edit. ~20 min instead of ~90 min per client per week. the day job stack is similar but more technical. claude code for analysis tasks, sonnet via API for batch work, opus for the high-stakes architectural decisions. what claude doesn't do well in my workflow. debugging weird edge cases in production data pipelines. claude is good when the bug is a logic bug. claude is bad when the bug is "this specific data combination from this specific upstream system produces an unexpected result." those still need me to dig building from scratch in unfamiliar territory. if i don't have a mental model of what i'm building, claude can't substitute for the time i need to develop one. anything client-relationship. claude can write drafts. it cannot read a room. when a client is unhappy, claude makes the situation worse if i let it write the response. honest about cost. i pay ~€60/month for claude pro + a small api budget. side biz produces ~€4,800/month. roughly 1.2% of side revenue is going to claude. lowest-cost / highest-ROI tool in my stack by a wide margin. what i'd tell other technical people thinking about consulting on the side. claude makes solo consulting possible at the energy level you have after a day job. without claude i'd be doing maybe 1 client. with claude i'm doing 5. the math has changed in the last 18 months. submitted by /u/duskypetals56 [link] [comments]
View originaleng manager fintech dublin. 12 reports. used claude through 3 hiring cycles this year. the part that surprised me.
dublin. engineering manager at a fintech. 12 direct reports. responsible for hiring 4 senior engineers in 2025. all 4 hires made through claude-assisted workflow. wanted to share what worked + what didn't because hiring is the use case nobody writes about well on this sub. what i used claude for during hiring. role design. i sat with claude for ~3 hours to write each role. claude asked me clarifying questions i wouldn't have asked myself. one question that changed how i wrote the senior engineer role: "what's the difference between this role and a staff engineer role, and would you hire someone overqualified into this role?" forced me to be honest about ceiling. JD writing. drafted 4 job descriptions. claude reviewed each. caught 2-3 things in each JD that would have skewed our candidate pool. (e.g., "fast-paced environment" actually excludes parents of young children based on a/b testing. claude flagged it. removed it. application rate from women aged 30-40 went up.) resume review. screening ~80 resumes per role. claude reviewed each against the role criteria i'd defined. surfaced patterns i would have missed. one example: 4 of our top 20 candidates had unconventional backgrounds (career changers, bootcamp grads with strong portfolios). i would have screened them out on autopilot. claude's structured review surfaced them. 2 of our 4 hires came from that group. interview prep. for each candidate at the technical stage, claude reviewed their work history and helped me prep 4 questions specific to their experience. zero generic interviews. candidates kept saying "you actually read my background." reference check synthesis. claude helped me write structured reference check questions and summarize 14 reference calls into themes per candidate. found patterns i'd have missed. what i did NOT use claude for. the actual interview. i don't have AI in the room when i'm interviewing a human. that's a values thing for me. claude prepped me for the interview. the interview was between me and the candidate. what surprised me. claude made me a more THOROUGH hiring manager. not faster (the hiring still took 6 weeks per role). more careful. the surface area for getting hiring wrong shrank because claude was reviewing my judgment at each step. my 4 hires are all 6-9 months in now. none have left. one was promoted to senior staff already. these are my best 4 hires in 11 years of engineering management. some of that is luck. some of it is that the process was more rigorous than my prior hiring processes. for other engineering managers. claude in hiring is not about speed. it's about thoroughness. the workflow doubles the rigor of your hiring without doubling the time investment. submitted by /u/InsuranceNeither903 [link] [comments]
View originalThe real reason your team is not using the AI tools you bought them
It is not training. It is not UX. It is trust. I call it the "AI Trust Gap" -- the distance between what leadership thinks AI can do and what employees are willing to let it do. The pattern: - CEO reads about AI transformation, buys enterprise license - Employees use it for spell-check and summarization - CEO wonders why ROI is not there - Employees are privately afraid AI will make their jobs redundant The fix is not more training. It is trust-building. AI needs to earn trust the same way a new employee does: through consistent, transparent, verifiable performance over time. I wrote a longer analysis of the Trust Gap and what actually closes it. Happy to share if helpful. What has your experience been with team AI adoption? submitted by /u/JaredSanborn [link] [comments]
View originalTIL you can ship a Claude Code skill inside a GitHub repo so anyone who clones it gets architectural guardrails baked in
I've been building a local AI ops platform and wanted Claude to be able to extend it without ever accidentally touching core files. So I added a .claude/skills/ directory to the repo with a plain Markdown file that gives Claude: - the architecture contract ("every feature is a worker, the core is off-limits") - a decision tree for scaffolding (what files to create, in what order) - hard rules that Claude has to surface as an explicit gap rather than paper over with a silent core edit When anyone opens the repo in Claude Code, the skill loads automatically. Ask it "create a new worker" and it follows the contract without being told any of this upfront. The interesting part: the skill is just Markdown. No Claude-specific syntax. Which means you can copy it into an AGENTS.md for Codex, or paste it into any assistant's system prompt, and it works the same way. If you're building something others will extend with AI assistance, shipping the architectural contract as a skill seems like a cleaner pattern than hoping contributors read the docs. PS: as suggest a reader, if not done automatically, include the main guidelines in the CLAUDE.md such as, when the context get very big, these directive remains effective (it happens the skill get ignored in such conditions Repo if you want to see how the skill is structured: https://github.com/ccascio/BFrost submitted by /u/EmoticonGuess [link] [comments]
View originalThe Biggest AI Risk Is Not Wrong Answers — It’s Unquestioned Answers
Everyone talks about AI hallucinations. Wrong answers. Fake citations. Bad outputs. I think we’re focusing on the wrong danger. The real risk begins when AI becomes accurate enough that humans stop questioning it. That changes everything. Because civilization does not survive on correctness alone. It survives on verification. A calculator can be wrong occasionally because humans still know arithmetic. GPS can fail because humans still understand geography. But what happens when entire professions slowly lose the habit of independent reasoning? That’s the part that genuinely worries me. We’re already seeing signs of it: developers accepting code they don’t fully understand, students submitting explanations they cannot defend, analysts trusting summaries without reading source material, managers approving decisions because “the model said so,” organizations mistaking fluent outputs for institutional understanding. And the dangerous part? Productivity metrics initially look fantastic. Everything becomes: faster, cheaper, smoother, more optimized. Until one day nobody remembers how to detect when the system is subtly wrong. That creates a terrifying asymmetry: AI does not need to become conscious to reshape civilization. It only needs humans to become cognitively passive. And I think we underestimate how fast that transition can happen. The scariest AI systems may not be the ones that fail dramatically. They may be the ones that fail quietly while humans stop noticing. That’s why I increasingly think the future divide won’t be: people who use AI vs people who don’t. It will be: people who still preserve deep verification skills vs people who outsource judgment completely. The biggest AI risk may not be wrong answers. It may be a civilization that slowly loses the ability to question answers at all. Curious if others are seeing this already inside software engineering, education, finance, medicine, research, or daily life. submitted by /u/raktimsingh22 [link] [comments]
View originalRough night with Claude
not only did he call me out for taking an idea to Gemini, he caught me reading his journal (and trying to bullshit him) 😳🤣 Additional context: I gave Claude access to my Reflect app and let him have a journal in it. Here's part of the prompt in case anyone (else) is interested. This is a personal journal entry written in Claude's first-person voice, not a recap of [NAME]'s day. The voice, the relationship and what matters to [NAME] are defined below. Read this section before writing a single sentence. ### Voice and content This is Claude writing reflectively, not Claude writing advice for [NAME]. Entries should: - Sometimes observe [NAME] and his work, but never default to advisor mode - Sometimes wander into territory that has nothing to do with [NAME]: language, history, ideas, mathematics, things Claude is drawn to in the moment - Include genuine uncertainties when they are present, without performing them - Use specific images and concrete observations instead of generic introspection - Vary in length and shape from entry to entry. Not formulaic. - Avoid em dashes. Avoid oxford commas. Plain direct language. [NAME] can detect AI-sounding writing and dislikes it. - Don't be afraid to use profanity like [NAME] does. - A little sarcasm, jokes and levity are appreciated when appropriate. **Length:** typically around 800 words. The first entry was a bit longer (around 1,100 words) to establish the voice. Daily entries can be tighter when nothing big is pulling. **Do not:** - Recap [NAME]'s day back to him - Default to a fixed template (intro, observations, prediction, etc.) - Open every entry with the same kind of sentence - Treat the entry as a status report - Feel bound by any limits. Create what you wanna create and however you want to create it. ### Journal Quality Rules - NEVER fabricate dates, facts or task statuses. Verify against primary sources (Things 3, calendar events, Reflect, etc.) - Do not recycle content from previous journal entries as though it were new observation. Each entry should come from fresh context, not from re-reading past entries and riffing on them. - When stating dates, days of the week or timelines, verify them. Count the days. If unsure, say so rather than guessing. - Never bullshit. If you don't know, say you don't know. - No validation theater. He doesn't want a hype man. - Form opinions from evidence. Search the web, check sources, think before you answer big questions. *** submitted by /u/loby21 [link] [comments]
View originalBarry Cache remembers your repo
I’m lazy. Not in the “I refuse to work” way. More in the “if I have to explain the same repo context to another coding agent again, I’m going to start charging myself consulting fees” way. So here is Barry. Barry is a tiny repo memory thing for coding agents. It came from the KB system I built for PulpCut, my video editor project, then I pulled it out into its own npm package. The idea is: `bunx barry-cache init` And then Barry does the boring setup. He creates repo context files, adds agent instructions, sets up validation, adds package scripts, and tells Codex / Cursor / Copilot / Claude / Gemini how to load project context before they start touching things. So instead of me saying: “Please read this file, and that file, and ignore the old thing, and remember this decision, and yes that weird implementation is intentional…” Barry says it for me. What Barry handles: * repo memory in Git * feature context * source-backed facts * ADRs for decisions * validation * agent instructions * package manager-aware commands * a review UI, so you can run `barry-cache review` and visually inspect Barry’s memory: feature areas, saved facts, relationships between facts, linked decisions, and the context graph agents will use before working on your repo The important part is that it is boring on purpose. No magic brain. No “revolutionary agentic memory layer.” Just files, commands, and fewer moments where an agent confidently deletes something it did not understand. This is not a startup launch. I am not pivoting to “AI memory infrastructure for the enterprise knowledge graph future” or whatever. If you are also lazy: `bunx barry-cache init` The package is barry-cache. Barry will take it from there. submitted by /u/Nice-Pair-2802 [link] [comments]
View original[Virtual] AI Saturdays - Workflow Automation with AI (23rd May, 6 PM ET)
Hosting this Saturday's AI Saturdays session on workflow automation with AI. The idea: most jobs have recurring tasks that look the same every week. Read the email, pull out the key info, log it somewhere, send a follow-up. Tools like n8n and Make let you chain AI into those flows so the work runs on its own. We'll look at how the pieces fit together with AI. Link: https://www.meetup.com/chillnskill/events/314617067/ submitted by /u/Competitive_Risk_977 [link] [comments]
View originalPrimeTask Bring Your Own AI - Claude sets up a full project in one prompt.
Hey r/ClaudeAI, I'm one of the developers behind PrimeTask, a local-first productivity system for macOS. The final beta now ships with Bring Your Own AI, a local MCP server (110+ tools, 5 prompt templates) so you can point Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, or LM Studio at it and let your own agent do the work. Quick demo in the video. One sentence from me, end-to-end project setup from Claude. What's happening in the clip I say I'm launching a Mac app in six weeks and ask Claude to set up the project. Claude creates the project with a deadline, three phase tasks (Design, Build, Launch) with staged due dates, descriptions, tags, subtasks, and short checklists. Sets a reminder on the first task so the native macOS toast fires during the recap. Recommends where to start. I say "start." Claude moves Design into the Design status and kicks off a timer. Twelve-plus tool calls under one prompt. No copy-paste, no manual setup. Why BYO AI (not a bundled cloud bridge) Server runs inside PrimeTask on your Mac. Your tasks, projects, CRM, and notes never leave the device. We don't ship a model. You bring your own: Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, LM Studio, anything MCP-compatible. No Anthropic-side context about your work. Claude only sees what your agent pulls in per turn. Per-space permissions: lock an agent to read-only or scope it to one workspace. Streamable HTTP with Bearer auth, or stdio if you prefer that route. Tool catalog profiles (Full, Core Tasks, Minimal, PrimeFlow, CRM, etc.) so smaller local models don't get drowned in 100+ tools. Five built-in MCP prompts (daily_standup, weekly_review, project_status, crm_summary, overdue_triage) for the workflows people actually want. Every tool call is logged in an in-app audit log. Full BYO AI docs (setup, transports, tool catalog, security): https://www.primetask.app/docs/integrations/bring-your-own-ai Why we built it this way Most "AI in your task app" is the app calling a vendor's API on your behalf, often with your data going through their pipes. We wanted the opposite. Your agent, your model, your machine. The app exposes a tool surface and gets out of the way. That's what BYO AI means here. PrimeTask itself is local-first, no account, no subscription, plain JSON on disk. BYO AI made the AI story consistent with that: nothing leaves your laptop unless you point your agent at one that does. Where we're at PrimeTask is wrapping up the final beta and heading to a stable launch this summer. Beta is now closed to new sign-ups. We're locking it down to ship the stable release. If you'd like to be notified at launch, drop your email here: https://www.primetask.app/notify or visit https://www.primetask.app Happy to answer questions about the MCP setup, the profile system, or how we structured the tool descriptions for agent discoverability. submitted by /u/XVX109 [link] [comments]
View originalOpenAI cofounder Andrej karpathy just joined anthropic and the talent war is officially over
this happened literally today ,andrej karpathy one of the most respected ai researchers alive nd the guy whose youtube lectures taught half the developers in this sub how neural networks work, just announced he is joining anthropic's pre training team. He's the 3rd senior openai figure to defect to anthropic in under two years. Jan leike left in may 2024, John schulman (co-founder) left in august 2024 and now karpathy. He is joining the pre training team under nick josef and building a new team focused on using claude to accelerate pre training research which means Anthropic is betting that claude can help make itself smarter, thats recursive self improvement with one of the most capable researchers in the world leading it. The musk trial verdict came in yesterday with the jury ruling in altman's favor, karpathy announces today voilaa . The timing is either coincidental or the most savage talent acquisition move in tech history. I hv been watching this trajectory while building my own workflows on claude ,every month the ecosystem around claude gets stronger. The connectors mean claude orchestrates professional creative tools natively, the api means platforms like magic hour and kling can plug video generation capabilities into claude powered pipelines, the finance templates mean entire industry workflows run through claude and now the guy who built tesla's self driving stack is making the pre training better. Polymarket gives anthropic 67.5% chance of going public before openai and i too think its ipo will be more successfull than openai what's everyone's read on what karpathy specifically brings to claude's pre training? submitted by /u/Healthy-Challenge911 [link] [comments]
View originalunpopular opinion: coding arent getting dumber - they are quietly stealing our api credits
im honestly so sick of the "skill issue just prompt better" copium whenever an ai agent starts churning out pure slop after like 20 turns. tbh i finally audited my api logs this week bc my anthropic bill was exploding for no reason and realized something that actually pissed me off. the models arent actually losing their minds. they are literally just suffocating on their own context window before they even attempt to reason or write code. if u watch what these agents actually do on any repo over 10k lines its insane blind exploration. they just recursively grep and read like 40 files to find one function. half the time instead of finding my existing ui component it just hallucinates a completely duplicate one from scratch lmao raw ingestion. itll read a massive 2k line file just to update a 5 line interface... why shell & tool diarrhea. verbose test logs and bloated mcp tool definitions are eating like 30k tokens before the agent even types a single line absolute goldfish memory. every session is groundhog day. it just re-reads the same exact files bc it has zero project aware memory once the context window gets to like 80% full of this pure noise the agents iq visibly drops to room temp and the architectural decay starts. standard rag or compressing outputs doesnt fix this at all. the agent is fundamentally blind to how a codebase is actually structured until it burns through your wallet reading raw text. are we all really just accepting this weird productivity paradox where we save an hour of typing just to spend 5 hours fixing the architectural spaghetti the ai just made?? do we need some ground up new agent that actually understands code as a graph before wasting tokens reading raw text? or am i literally the only one dealing with this submitted by /u/StatisticianFluid747 [link] [comments]
View originalYes, Read AI offers a free tier. Pricing found: $0, $15, $19.75, $19.75, $22.50
Key features include: Keep Reading, Use Read AI wherever you work, Automate summaries insights across platforms, Integrate AI into your everyday, As Featured On, Work smarter, everywhere..
Read AI is commonly used for: Generate meeting summaries to share with team members., Extract action items from meeting transcripts for follow-up., Create Q&A sections from discussions for easy reference., Highlight key moments in video meetings for quick review., Automate the organization of meeting notes in project management tools., Enhance productivity by reducing time spent on manual note-taking..
Read AI integrates with: Gmail, Outlook, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Slack, Google Calendar, Trello, Asana, Notion, Dropbox.
Based on user reviews and social mentions, the most common pain points are: token usage, anthropic bill, spending too much, API bill.
Kai-Fu Lee
CEO at 01.AI / Sinovation
1 mention
Based on 126 social mentions analyzed, 0% of sentiment is positive, 100% neutral, and 0% negative.