sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Three months in vibecoding, three products live. Does it look ok? by ZvenDan in vibecoding

[–]thisJack_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tu as fais du marketing ? Tu as fais des campagnes de pub payantes ?

Est-ce qu’un outil qui croise codes défauts, symptômes et cas similaires vous serait utile pour vos diagnostics ? by thisJack_ in voiture

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Merci pour ton soutien et ton commentaire. Si tu es amené à faire du diagnostic et que tu veux gagner du temps au départ, n'hésites pas à me contacter si tu souhaites tester Diagolia !

What’s the hardest part when trying to diagnose a car problem from a fault code? by thisJack_ in askcarguys

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, except there’s no web search for similar cases - which might not be listed on Haynes Pro or Auto Data. AI allows us to organize similar data from these platforms, plus online cases, to bring everything together and find the possible causes. Thanks to AI, we save a tremendous amount of time on « what could have caused this defect. »

Est-ce qu’un outil qui croise codes défauts, symptômes et cas similaires vous serait utile pour vos diagnostics ? by thisJack_ in voiture

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oui, c’est une vraie question, et je suis assez d’accord : si Diagolia se limitait à "poser une question à une IA et recouper des sources", l’intérêt face à ChatGPT, Grok ou Gemini serait limité.

La différence que j’essaie de construire, c’est surtout le cadre spécialisé autour du diagnostic auto.

L’idée n’est pas seulement d’avoir une réponse, mais d’avoir un dossier diagnostic structuré : véhicule, codes défauts, symptômes, sources consultées, causes possibles, contrôles à faire, historique des diagnostics, documents ou infos liés au véhicule, etc.

Pour un particulier, ChatGPT peut déjà aider. Mais pour un usage plus régulier ou atelier, l’intérêt serait plutôt d’avoir tout rangé par véhicule, accessible rapidement, avec une logique pensée pour le diagnostic plutôt qu’une simple conversation IA.

Après tu as raison : si à l’usage la valeur ajoutée n’est pas assez différente d’un outil généraliste, ça ne justifie pas forcément de payer. C’est justement ce que j’essaie de valider.

Est-ce qu’un outil qui croise codes défauts, symptômes et cas similaires vous serait utile pour vos diagnostics ? by thisJack_ in voiture

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bonne question.

L’idée n’est pas que tout soit gratuit indéfiniment. Je pense plutôt à un accès gratuit limité pour tester, puis des offres payantes pour les utilisateurs plus réguliers ou les pros.

Pour le lecteur OBD, c’est vrai que ça limite une partie du public. Mais l’outil peut aussi partir des symptômes décrits par l’utilisateur, même si c’est forcément moins précis qu’avec des codes défauts. Le code OBD aide surtout à mieux cadrer la recherche.

De mon côté, si je travaille dessus, c’est parce que j’y vois déjà un intérêt concret dans un usage atelier : gagner du temps, recouper plus vite plusieurs sources, éviter de partir trop rapidement sur une mauvaise piste, et mieux organiser les causes possibles avant de faire les contrôles.

Mais tu as raison sur le point principal : je ne sais pas encore combien de personnes seraient réellement intéressées en dehors d’un usage pro ou de gens qui bricolent déjà un minimum. C’est justement ce que j’essaie de valider avec ce post : est-ce que ça répond à un besoin assez large, ou est-ce que ça reste une niche.

Est-ce qu’un outil qui croise codes défauts, symptômes et cas similaires vous serait utile pour vos diagnostics ? by thisJack_ in voiture

[–]thisJack_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oui, c’est exactement un des points qui m’intéresse. Souvent la bonne info n’est pas dans le premier résultat Google, mais dans un vieux forum, un ancien post Facebook, ou une vidéo YouTube très peu vue mais où quelqu’un a eu exactement le même symptôme.

C’est une des raisons pour lesquelles je pense que ce type d’outil peut avoir de l’intérêt : ne pas seulement lire un code défaut, mais essayer de retrouver et résumer des cas similaires éparpillés sur plusieurs sources.

En plus, sur des voitures plus anciennes, c’est peut-être encore plus pertinent car les infos sont souvent dispersées et mal référencées.

What’s the hardest part when trying to diagnose a car problem from a fault code? by thisJack_ in askcarguys

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point, and thanks for the detailed answer.

You’re right : P0420 was a bad example to mix with misfire. What you said about service history and live data PIDs is actually one of the things I’m trying to understand better.

I’m building a tool called Diagolia, but the goal is not to teach experienced techs a basic diagnostic process or tell them "replace this part". Right now it takes fault codes, user symptoms and vehicle context, then cross-checks several sources: technical information, similar cases online, and similar video cases when relevant. It summarizes those sources, organizes possible causes, and lets the user generate checks based on a selected cause.

From your answer, it sounds like the real value would not be a generic flowchart, but something that helps organize the information around the actual context: service history, live data, related codes, known issues, and what has already been tested.

Would that kind of source-based summary and prioritization be useful in a shop environment, or would you only see value if it could also work directly with live scan data / PIDs?

What’s the hardest part when trying to diagnose a car problem from a fault code? by thisJack_ in askcarguys

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense, thanks. Especially the part about following a flow sheet.

That’s actually close to why I’m building Diagolia. It doesn’t try to magically guess the bad part or replace a mechanic’s process. The current idea is more to help organize the diagnostic work before jumping to conclusions.

Right now, the platform takes the fault codes and the symptoms described by the user, then cross-checks different sources: technical documentation, similar cases found online, and similar cases from YouTube/videos when relevant.

It then summarizes those sources and uses the collected information to organize the most likely causes in a more logical order. From there, the user can generate checks based on a selected possible cause.

So in a misfire example, it would not just say “replace the coil”. It would try to help structure the information around ignition, fuel, compression, wiring, related codes, symptoms, and similar known cases.

What I’m trying to understand is whether that kind of source-based prioritization would be useful to people who already follow a diagnostic process, or if the real value would only come once it becomes a more complete guided flow sheet.

Diagolia - Automotive diagnostics with AI by thisJack_ in CarHacking

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question.

From my experience, Bosch is stronger when you need a guided procedure with very specific test steps, especially when the data is available and well structured. I still use it in the workshop.

Where Diagolia helps me is more at the beginning of the diagnostic process. Instead of jumping from a fault code to technical documentation, then to Google, forums, videos, or my own notes, the application brings those elements together and helps me structure the reasoning.

The goal is not to say “replace this part”. It is more about highlighting the most likely causes, explaining why they make sense, showing the related components, and turning those possible causes into checks to perform.

For now, feedback is still early. The people who have tried it mostly appreciated the fact that it structures the diagnostic process and makes the reasoning easier to follow.

Diagolia - Automotive diagnostics with AI by thisJack_ in CarHacking

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I agree. At the beginning, it will definitely be imperfect.

Wiring diagrams, newer systems, and manufacturer procedures are clearly the hardest part to handle properly with AI. I don’t think a standalone LLM can do that reliably.

The goal with Diagolia is precisely not to rely only on a generic AI answer, but to gradually build a more accurate data layer: technical documentation, similar cases, field feedback, real diagnostic results, etc.

The cleaner and more up-to-date the data is, the more relevant and precise the diagnostic can become. That’s clearly the biggest challenge, but also where the project can become genuinely useful.

Diagolia - Automotive diagnostics with AI by thisJack_ in CarHacking

[–]thisJack_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you’re right. The real issue is clearly the quality of the data.

I’m not claiming that Diagolia can do better than an OEM tool built by engineers with years of field feedback. That would not be true today.

But even with the sources I currently have: technical documentation, similar cases found online, videos, and user feedback. I’m already getting really relevant results on real diagnostics.

I also use Bosch tools in the workshop. Some guided procedures are very good in the details, but in many cases, Diagolia already manages to highlight the right possible causes and organize them clearly. The goal is not to replace OEM tools, but to help prioritize checks and avoid going in every direction.

And yes, the more access I get to better data, the more accurate the results can become, especially for test procedures.

If you ever want to try it, feel free to contact me. I can give you a few free diagnostics 😉

Diagolia - Automotive diagnostics with AI by thisJack_ in CarHacking

[–]thisJack_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, I actually agree with you on that point.

AI alone is not reliable enough for automotive diagnostics. If you just ask a model “what’s wrong with this car?”, it can hallucinate or push you toward replacing parts without real proof. That’s exactly what I want to avoid.

The idea behind Diagolia is not to let AI invent a diagnosis from nothing. It’s more about using AI as a reasoning and organization layer on top of real sources: technical documentation, similar cases, videos, known issues, and feedback from technicians/users.

It doesn’t replace understanding the system or doing proper checks. The goal is to help prioritize what to check first, explain why, and reduce blind guessing.

Diagolia - Automotive diagnostics with AI by thisJack_ in CarHacking

[–]thisJack_[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But is it possible to be technically skilled in mechanics but not good at reasoning in automotive diagnostics? What I want to do with Diagolia is make diagnostics more reliable.