| ▲ | simianwords 2 hours ago |
| I came across this company called OpenEvidence. They seem to be offering semantic search on medical research. Founded in 2021. How could it possibly keep up with LLM based search? |
|
| ▲ | dnw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It is a little more than semantic search. Their value prop is curation of trusted medical sources and network effects--selling directly to doctors. I believe frontier labs have no option but to go into verticals (because models are getting commoditized and capability overhang is real and hard to overcome at scale), however, they can only go into so many verticals. |
| |
| ▲ | simianwords 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Their value prop is curation of trusted medical sources Interesting. Why wouldn't an LLM based search provide the same thing? Just ask it to "use only trusted sources". | | |
| ▲ | tacoooooooo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They're building a moat with data. They're building their own datasets of trusted sources, using their own teams of physicians and researchers. They've got hundreds of thousands of physicians asking millions of questions everyday. None of the labs have this sort of data coming in or this sort of focus on such a valuable niche | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent [-] | | > They're building their own datasets of trusted sources, using their own teams of physicians and researchers. Oh so they are not just helping in search but also in curating data. > They've got hundreds of thousands of physicians asking millions of questions everyday. None of the labs have this sort of data coming in or this sort of focus on such a valuable niche I don't take this too seriously because lots of physicians use ChatGPT already. | | |
| ▲ | some_random an hour ago | parent [-] | | Lots of physicians use ChatGPT but so do lots of non-physicians and I suspect there's some value in knowing which are which |
|
| |
| ▲ | otikik 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think you can use an LLM for that. For the same reason you can't just ask it to "Make the app secure and fast" | | | |
| ▲ | palmotea an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why wouldn't an LLM based search provide the same thing? Just ask it to "use only trusted sources". Is that sarcasm? | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent [-] | | why? | | |
| ▲ | Rygian an hour ago | parent [-] | | How does the LLM know which sources can be trusted? | | |
| ▲ | simianwords an hour ago | parent [-] | | yeah it can avoid blogspam as sources and prioritise research from more prestigious journals or more citations. it will be smart enough to use some proxy. | | |
| ▲ | palmotea 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You can also tell it to just not hallucinate, right? Problem solved. I think what you'll end up is a response that still relies on whatever random sources it likes, but it'll just attribute it to the "trusted sources" you asked for. | | | |
| ▲ | 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | olliepro an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Much of the scientific medical literature is behind paywalls. They have tapped into that datasource (whereas ChatGPT doesn't have access to that data). I suspect that were the medical journals to make a deal with OpenAI to open up the access to their articles/data etc, that open evidence would rely on the existing customers and stickiness of the product, but in that circumstance, they'd be pretty screwed. For example, only 7% of pharmaceutical research is publicly accessible without paying.
See https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7048123/ |
| |
| ▲ | simianwords 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Do you think maybe ~10B USD to should cover all of them? For both indexing and training? Seems highly valuable. Edit: seems like it is ~10M USD. |
|
