←back to thread

108 points adamaskun | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

I'm still working on it, curious but what feature may be most valuable for you? What do you think about personalised care instructions, and an interactive chat feature for each plant.
Show context
mikeocool ◴[] No.41892248[source]
This looks cool! I would be a causal user of this, but $7 puts it out of my price range, even with a free trial.

Though I think there is something interesting you are exploring here —- I imagine this is backed by an LLM API? If that’s the case, I would naively assume that I can get similar information using my chat gpt subscription directly — personally that’s where I find myself going for many of the random questions that come up in my life these days.

That brings up a couple of interesting questions that I would be curious to hear the results over time on (not that you have any obligation to share) 1) is there a wide audience that finds a value in this that don’t otherwise have access to ChatGPT/claude/whatever llm — and value this enough to pay just for this sort of ‘niche’ AI product? Or 2) alternatively — is the prompting/fine tuning/curation of the ai content you are providing better than what a naive LLM user could do on their own in a casual chat, that paying for this directly in addition to an LLM service would be worth it?

replies(3): >>41892275 #>>41892941 #>>41893954 #
1. joshvm ◴[] No.41893954[source]
The de facto for Western plant species ID is Pl@ntNet/iNaturalist (free and citizen scientists will ID if there is uncertainty). Then you just look up care instructions? I would absolutely not trust ChatGPT.

I say Western as the training data is skewed by common species and usually they’re a bit geographically limited (for example BirdNET works best if you use a localised model).

Also if you use these free services, you can contribute natural training data which is valuable - even for well represented species.