Personal

A Chat Disappears. A Map Keeps Growing.

Most AI conversations are throwaway -- you ask, you get an answer, you close the tab. A mindmap is different. It's a workspace you come back to, branch from, and build on over time.

Start a living map See example ↓

Explore a reference map

A living reference map of US history and its presidents, zoomed out to the whole timeline, so you can zoom into any era or president and keep adding to it.

Open the full map

How it works

A chat is a single session. You ask questions, get answers, and when you close the tab, the conversation is effectively over. You might scroll back, but you’ll never branch from message #47 to explore a tangent you skipped.

A mindmap is a workspace. You create it once and come back to it as your understanding grows. Every new thing you learn gets added as a branch in the right place. The structure holds the context, so even months later you can pick up exactly where you left off.

Start with a question or topic. It doesn’t need to be fully formed. The first few branches are a rough sketch of what you’re exploring.
Come back when you learn something new. Read an article, had a conversation, ran an experiment — add it as a branch where it belongs. The tree grows organically, not chronologically.
Branch from any point at any time. Found a branch from two weeks ago that’s suddenly relevant? Continue from there. The full context of everything above that branch is still intact.
Use the map as a reference. The accumulated tree becomes a decision record, a research log, or a knowledge base. It’s not a chat transcript — it’s structured knowledge you can navigate.

Why this doesn’t work in a chat

Chat interfaces are designed for single sessions. The conversation scrolls linearly, and there’s no way to branch from an earlier point without starting over. If you learn something new three weeks later, you either start a new chat (losing all context) or append to a thread that’s already hundreds of messages long (losing all structure).

A tree has no “bottom.” Every node is a potential starting point. You can have a branch that’s been growing for months next to one you started today. The structure gives you orientation that a linear transcript never can.

Example

A public health researcher studying antibiotic resistance starts a map in January. By April, it has branches for overprescription patterns, agricultural antibiotic use, phage therapy as an alternative, and WHO policy recommendations. Each branch grew from different sessions: a literature review in week one, notes after a conference in February, a new CDC dataset she found in March, and a conversation with a microbiologist that challenged her framing of agricultural use. When she sits down to write her grant proposal, the map is the literature review — every source, every argument, every gap she identified, organized by where it fits in her argument, not by when she found it.

For related workflows, see deep dive for exhausting a single question, or decision making for weighing specific options.

Now try it yourself

Why do some countries thrive after independence while others collapse?

It usually comes down to three things: whether the colonial borders grouped hostile populations together, whether institutions were extractive or inclusive, and whether the departing power left infrastructure or just extraction pipelines.

What do you mean by extractive vs inclusive institutions?

Extractive institutions concentrate wealth and power in a small elite. Inclusive ones distribute economic opportunity broadly. Acemoglu and Robinson's argument is that colonies set up for resource extraction kept extractive institutions after independence, while settler colonies built inclusive ones. It's not destiny, but it's a strong starting pattern.

Okay but South Korea was an extractive Japanese colony and it thrived. How does that fit?

It doesn't fit the simple version. South Korea's success came from deliberate state-led industrialization under Park Chung-hee, land reform that broke the old elite, massive US aid during the Cold War, and an educated population from Japanese-era schooling. The institutional inheritance mattered less than what happened in the 20 years after.

I keep coming back to this. What about Singapore? Another exception?

Similar pattern. Singapore inherited British legal institutions but its success was driven by Lee Kuan Yew's specific policy choices: anti-corruption enforcement, public housing, bilingual education, and positioning as a financial hub. The colonial inheritance gave it a legal framework, but the transformation was deliberate and post-independence.