[arkh]

> fuzzy search

> I do NOT want search to become any fuzzier than it already is.

For a specialized shop site you may want it. Search term: "something 150", the client is looking for a 1.5m something, if you're doing an exact text search your search engine will give you a lot of noise. Or you'll have to fiddle with synonyms, dictionaries and how you index your products with a huge chance to break other types of search queries.

[soco]

How many sites will have useful results to return for a "something 150"? Muzzle width? Bees? T-shirt size? Walking distance? You surely cannot want _all_ these categories yet you'll get them all in a list. I might be biased but today's fuzzy search is a dumpster fire, sites hating to return only two results so they bury anything relevant in a tidal wave of unrelated garbage. I have office mates like that and everybody hates them as well.

[arkh]

My current case is: whatever you'll look for in a hardware store. So anything yeah: muzzle width, wood length, protective gear, liquid quantities, animal food etc.

And depending on the client vertical they tend to not use the same vocabulary when looking for products.

But contrary to some other comments I know LLM are not magical tools and anything we use will require data to fine tune whatever base model we choose. And it will be used on top of standard text search not as a full replacement. I'm sure many companies are currently doing the exact same thing or will be soon enough.

[ZeroTalent]

But this is why LLMs are so amazing. They understand context and nuance, and they have reasoning skills now. So you will not get a long list of garbage from a good model.

[soco]

Do you know such models or is this wishful thinking?

[ZeroTalent]

o3, reasoner.com, and complex setups of "thinking" workflows for sonnet 3.7, gemini 2.5 pro, and o1-pro

Gemini 2.5 pro is basically free.

Also watsonx, but that's b2b.

[player1234]

Sounds like a trillion dollar killer app.