Totally agree on that, if you have to look constantly at something 95% there is no value. The expectation of course is that it will be better. But if not at a certain level useless.
Not sure how that research compares to the claims being made by many that a second opinion via ai in the end led to changes in treatment. Likely people spent quite some time searching and figuring out. That would be a different and n=1 result. Don't have enough knowledge of that research to determine how much result can be gained when the models are managed in a way that produces better results.
And of course how much time/effort/cost that would take. How much is custom and how much is an automated programmable flow.
That does make sense but the order of it might be: doctor analysis. Then show LLM as double check to doctor. Doctor assesses and may keep en improve the doctors first analysis?
Why wouldn’t you as a doctor by standard run the images through a certified compliant LLM? The actual cost won’t be it and then you can see if you get any new ideas from it. See if it’s just wrong or that it spotted a little detail you missed?
The LLM doesn’t need to be leading or whatever but then you can have a conversation with the patient. If their ChatGPT reports has differences it can be analyzed as well.
It feels like the time constraint of the 15m doctor sessions is the thing. But if prepared immediately after the scan then why not?
There is always time needed to factor in new developments and innovations and that’s fine. Just moving blindly work from human to LLM is wrong. But learning on and testing with all the ai tools incoming constantly won’t be a waste. There will be more and more tools in those processes outside of human judgement, better improve the workflows now to be able to test and plugin new models and systems when they are ready.
It is a real issue. Makes sense. How are your experiences with it and keeping up with the constant changes in Claude for example? There are many tools which can be installed but it's difficult to imagine how Claude internal develop themselves.
Would be interesting to think about what startups are not on the list. There should be a tremendous amount. Really interesting to see what you already got.
Also interesting would be that this is map-based, so physical location but I think you will find a lot of startups with unclear physical locations.
Cool work! Would be so interested in what would happen if you would put the data and you plan / features you wanted in a Claude Code instance and let it go. You did carefully thinking, but those models now also go really far and deep. Would be really interested in seeing what it comes up with. For that kind of data getting something like a Mac mini or whatever (no not with OpenClaw) would be damn interesting to see how fast and far you can go.
This is interesting to see from multiple sides. The method (voice/chat/whatever) is one piece but the other is:
You already show many questions on one issue (a ticket).
Would you need to think about those? With the secretary the task is split: you decide you need the ticket, the secretary handles the rest while you focus on what you do.
Presenting all options, getting all callbacks, confirm e-mails etc does not change that. It puts all load on you.
I am currently testing the app. Maybe, for more engagement, start processing cards faster just after installation. It feels weird to have to wait 30 minutes, just show me at least a card. Like the fact that I am installing DayFlow would be a positive experience.
Compliments for the Wizard - that one works perfect at least with Gemini. One little detail: You have a Github Star button in it, that really was at a non-logical place and made me think.
Also you stated, and true, that there is much focus needed on improving your core feature.
It might be interesting to allow some kind of API / plugin area. So that people can expand on your core feature and add the desired parts. Might in the future expand to some kind of AppStore like feature with plugins.
That would keep your work focused and allows others to make it complete in their vision, and for others.
Not sure how that research compares to the claims being made by many that a second opinion via ai in the end led to changes in treatment. Likely people spent quite some time searching and figuring out. That would be a different and n=1 result. Don't have enough knowledge of that research to determine how much result can be gained when the models are managed in a way that produces better results.
And of course how much time/effort/cost that would take. How much is custom and how much is an automated programmable flow.