this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
338 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59346 readers
7014 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In particular, know how to identify the common and deadly species (eg: much of the genus Amanita) yourself, and get multiple trustworthy field guides for your part of the world.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 7 months ago

you have sort of a weird take on this? like here are our premises, what we know with certainty:

  • all mycology apps tested to date are known to be poor (highest accuracy less than 50%)
  • all LLMs are known to be fairly poor

and the author is deriving the conclusion:

  • mycology apps that happen to be LLM-based have a high likelihood of being poor, so be careful

like yes, it’s not an empirical conclusion because someone still needs to do the work of testing the LLM mycology apps. i’d call it maybe an evidence based hypothesis that the average consumer should heed rather than find out the hard way and get poisoned.

but i think you condeming it as “biased,” “misinformation” or “misleading” is unnecessarily harsh. to me this looks like basic pattern recognition and forming hypotheses based on real evidence.

maybe i am missing a hole in the logic here and if so let me know.