Use AI Reviews

Summary: I was drafting documentation and needed different strengths from each model. Being able to hop between them quickly kept me productive and reduced downtime.

Positive: Switching between openai, anthropic, and google models took seconds and didn’t lose conversation context.

Negative: Would be nice to see provider speeds displayed in advance to choose the fastest one.

Summary: When drafting a legal summary, comparing claude opus with gpt 4 responses side by side helped me choose the more precise version quickly.

Positive: Live model comparison let me pick the most logical answer without guessing. This saved rework time and kept projects moving.

Negative: Would love a way to favorite models so I can find my top ones faster next time.

Summary: I tested translations for a multilingual newsletter. Use AI handled tone and context properly, and the readers said it felt natural in each language.

Positive: Loved that I could switch between english, spanish, and french in the same chat. Responses were fluent and contextually correct.

Negative: I wish the language switch button were closer to the chat box for quicker access.

Summary: I tried the voice-enabled command feature during a team call to draft notes. It kept up with me well, and I barely had to edit the output afterward.

Positive: Being able to speak prompts directly instead of typing them was surprisingly useful. It made brainstorming sessions flow better and felt natural.

Negative: Could use a short delay option so the system waits a moment before transcribing my voice input.

Summary: Writing marketing copy was faster because I could jump between models and keep all responses organized. The clean workspace is exactly what I needed.

Positive: The minimalist interface helps me focus on the task. Multi-LLM access made comparing responses between models straightforward.

Negative: Would like a dark mode toggle in a more prominent spot so I don’t have to dig through settings.

Summary: I used Use AI for a week while working on a research summary. Switching between models mid-chat felt seamless and saved me from restarting prompts. The experience was smooth, and the centralized workspace really cut down on distractions.

Positive: Loved how quickly I could swap between gpt-4, claude opus, and gemini without losing context. The unified interface kept everything neat and saved time.

Negative: It would be great to have more visible indicators for when a model is temporarily slow or down so I know before switching.

Summary: Good option if you are fed up with having to subscribe to various AI tool options. I use this mainly for my content writing needs and it serves me well. The transitions between models are smooth although I wish they would hurry up on switching to all options.

Positive: The idea of an all-in-one AI workspace solves an existing problem, namely an excess number of AI subscriptions. Voice-activated commands function well. This is convenient for those who prefer to have an uninterrupted conversation with their personal assistant.

Negative: Certain models tend to be slower compared to others, and it is not always easy to predict which will be the slowest. The interface, although clean and simple, lacks advanced functionality for the power user who needs more precision in his or her work.

Summary: A great tool for everyday tasks in AI. I use it primarily for writing documents and brainstorming. The comparability of claude and gpt responses helps me to get better results. Sometimes the slowdowns occur, though.

Positive: Multi-llm access works as advertised and you really do get a wide range of models. The centralized workspace concept is smart and mostly well-executed. Voice commands are reliable enough that I actually use them regularly which is more than I can say for most voice features.

Negative: Model availability indicators not always accurate – sometimes show a model as online when it's experiencing delays. A few quality-of-life improvements could be made to the interface.

Summary: Decent tool for aggregating access to AI. I use it mostly for coding assistance and it works well for this purpose, though I do wish it was a bit snappier overall.

Positive: Changing mid-conversation between models is actually very helpful if one of these models doesn't quite nail the tone you're aiming for. Model availability indicators help you see what's online, too. The voice-enabled commands are good enough to actually use.

Negative: Response times vary a lot depending on the model in use. Some of the really advanced reasoning models can be slower than expected. The interface feels a bit bare-bones in places.

Summary: I like it now, but it took some effort to get there. With a bit more polish, it could feel more welcoming.

Positive: The feature depth supports many workflows, from writing to research digests. Once familiar, switching models mid chat feels natural.

Negative: Early use felt overwhelming, and I needed time to adjust. A simplified starter mode could ease onboarding.

Summary: I often compare responses before finalizing client notes. useai helps me double check reasoning without extra steps, which feels efficient overall.

Positive: The live comparison feature in useai makes differences between models more obvious, which helps when accuracy matters. Switching mid chat feels seamless.

Negative: The first few sessions felt slow while learning the layout. Some buttons could be labeled more intuitively.

Summary: I see the value here, but it demands some patience up front. After that, it becomes a dependable part of my workflow.

Positive: There is no shortage of features, and fast switching between providers works well once learned. Productivity gains are real after the adjustment period.

Negative: The interface initially feels crowded, and I had to slow down to understand model availability indicators. A lighter default view would help new users.

Summary: It took me a few sessions to feel comfortable, but once things clicked, it became useful. I still think onboarding could be smoother for people new to AI tools.

Positive: The platform offers a lot of flexibility through multi-llm access and live model comparison, which is great once understood. Productivity improved after a few days of regular use.

Negative: At first, the number of options felt overwhelming. The interface could guide beginners better, and some features felt tucked away rather than obvious.

Summary: I help with summarizing articles and writing sections; although it’s very good at producing content with high quality, UI layout slightly affects the efficiency of prolonged editing sessions.

Positive: Expert reasoning proofs have capabilities and support for accepting numbers as well as screenshots, which is very useful; there are no stability issues with the workspace.

Negative: The lengthwise spacing seems too loose, and thread control could be more efficient.

Summary: I have employed it as an instrument for writing summaries and it works well, but there was some friction with exporting that delayed my end-stage process.

Positive: It has advanced reasoning models that tackle technical queries effectively and an organized research area keeps things clean and neat; it’s useful to have a live model comparison for verification.

Negative: There are constraints on functions supported for export. Also, at times, the search facility fails to trace old threads.