This happens to me fairly often:
I click in the name field as the first step of supplying an initial ID, either on the mobile app or on the website.
Before I start typing, the computer vision results appear. I scan them quickly to see if I can select the correct ID without any further typing, but alas, the species or subspecies I have in mind isn’t in the list, though some related species and possibly higher-level taxa do appear.
I start typing, and the almost-right computer vision results disappear, replaced by a list of choices that match what I’ve typed so far. Most or all of these are organisms of completely unrelated types.
I either have to type the entire name of the taxon I have in mind, or type a few characters, then pause and wait for the suggestions list to update, then perhaps type a few more characters, then pause and wait again, etc.
If the autocomplete list took the knowledge from the computer vision into account, then step 3 and/or 4 could be greatly reduced.
Here’s a real example I just encountered.
My photo is of Uma inornata, the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. I click in the “Species name” field and get the following list from computer vision:
I start typing “Um”. The computer vision list, which was soooo close, is now replaced with this:
One moment ago, the system was almost certain that I was looking at a lizard in the Phrynosomatinae subfamily – true! Now that I have given it more information, the system forgot all that, and is offering me a bunch of friggin’ plants, wasps, and slugs! Slugs, I tell you!
The autocomplete list is not in an obvious order (e.g., not alphabetical order), so I guess it’s sorted by likelihood-of-match based on number of observations or some such. It would be a much more useful list if the computer vision guesses strongly influenced the sort order.