Q: Hi, we need a tool like this.
However, we are held back by two things. Chat GPT3 seems outdated and not much future proof, how can we count on your service being around in a few years and being updated when you start out with GPT3 at this point?
Another worry is your website, which does not contain much information about your company or who is behind it. We see you provide a link to LinkedIn, but a it is hard to find confidence in a company/service that does not put all the details on their website. You are not alone in this though, AppSumo is failing miserably in our view when it comes to demanding this type of obvious information being easily available on the website. Would you purchase your own service when the website is lacking this key information?
Oh, and one more thing. You are listing organizations such as UCL, Yale, Stanford, Bayer, Lufthansa, etc. on your website. Are all of those your clients and using your services, and if not, why are all those logos on your website?
We are ready to make a purchase, but are held back by a few doubts, such as those listed above. Hope you can elaborate, thanks.
Christophe_docAnalyzer.ai
May 14, 2024A: Future-Proofing and Updates: We are committed to longevity. We plan to continuously upgrade to more advanced models as they become available, ensuring our service remains at the cutting edge.
Company Transparency: We understand the importance of transparency, especially when you are considering a new service. Detailed information about our company can be found on our Privacy Policy page https://docanalyzer.ai/privacy-policy , but you are right this might be more visible across our website (we will fix that later today). We are based in New York, USA, and are committed to maintaining open and clear communication with our clients.
Clientele and Logo Use: The logos listed on our website represent a range of organizations that indeed have used our services.
We hope this response has addressed your concerns. Please feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or require further clarifications.
InvestHealthPLUSThank you for getting back to us.
Unfortunately, the fact that GPT3 is being used and no concrete upgrade is mentioned in your reply will probably keep us from becoming a client. It is difficult to see how you can argue that you will continuously update when you have chosen to start with what by many is considered outdated tech. Hard to see how we will get any benefit compared to other alternatives.
When we searched more info about your company we found a UK company registration with the same name: https://vat-search.co.uk/Cf0H./AI-FOR-Verticals,-INC
Also, we find it hard to believe that any of the mentioned organizations on your website has indeed been using your product, if so, was that for free? It seems you are a new company starting up with outdated tech, and I doubt any of the mentioned organizations on your website would consider using GPT3 for any serious purpose. We also fail to see how any of them would become a customer of a company with virtually no company information on the website, not even the VAT number.
We need a tool like you are proposing here, but not with a sub-par GPT version. We need something we can trust and that we know will be around and relevant for the future. Unfortunately, due to raised concerns, we are unlikely to go for your solution unless there are significant improvements and things start to look more trustworthy.
@InvestHealth It's been mentioned several times in previous communications that:
* We will add Anthropic models this month.
* When possible, we will upgrade to better models under the same conditions.
* The BYOK feature, which is coming this month, will allow some users to utilize better models with the tool.
That said, the current scope of the offer won't simply make sense with, for example, the pricing of GPT-4. That's just a pure economic rule.
I'm not sure why you searched for our company information in the UK, since we are a USA C corporation registered in Delaware. Our address and name have always been on the website (sorry that you missed it but it was always in the policy section). We've also added an "About Us" entry to make it clearer.
Sorry that you find it difficult to believe that the mentioned organizations are our users, but that is simply the case. I think the set of organizations would have been an odd choice for a fabricated list.
We hope you will keep an open mind regarding our efforts and good faith.