You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
As hilarious as every other time it’s posted, but incorrect.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
i do not know much about mushrooms
We can tell
deleted by creator
What they mean is that there is no mushroom that will kill you from touch or even chewing and then spitting. Amanita Phaloides needs around 20g of dry mushroom to kill a healthy human. I chewed some before and spat it out just to know what it tastes like, the only reason I won’t send a video of me doing it is because I want to stay anonymous.
There are however some scleroderma that can cause conjunctivitis from touching them and then touching your eyes.
deleted by creator
Up front, yeah, I absolutely didn’t read all of that. I am an amateur forager, and while I’m confident enough to sight identify common edibles and eat them, I don’t consider myself to “know about mushrooms” either. My problem with your comment is that it’s just as bad as AI giving advice; people might skim through and take it as fact without reading your little disclaimer, just like people skim through and take AI as fact without knowing better. That probably seems fine on the surface because your comment is just the opposite of the meme and, if followed, your advice will definitely prevent anyone getting poisoned. Unfortunately, it also will really discourage anyone interested in foraging. I’d hate for someone to miss out on a fun, healthy hobby because you can’t just keep your shit to your self.
Lemmy has communities where people who know what they’re talking about can give actual good advice. Please seek one out!
I tell people who work under me to scrutinize it like it’s a Google search result chosen for them using the old I’m Feeling Lucky button.
Just yesterday I was having trouble enrolling a new agent in my elk stack. It wanted me to obliterate a config and replace it with something else. Literally would have broken everything.
It’s like copying and pasting stack overflow into prod.
AI is useful. It is not trustworthy.
Sounds more actively harmful than useful to me.
When it works it can save time automating annoying tasks.
The problem is “when it works”. It’s like having to do code reviews mid work every time the dumb machine does something.
So it causes more harm or loss than benefit. So it’s not useful.
“When it works” it creates the need for oversight because “when it doesn’t work” it creates massive liabilities.
I’m not disagreeing lol.
I bring it up to explain why losers are obsessed with it.
If you would say the same for stack overflow and Google, then sure.
Otherwise, absolutely not.
I know nothing about stacking elk, though I’m sure it’s easier if you sedate them first. But yeah, common sense and a healthy dose of skepticism seems like the way to go!
Yeah, you just have to practice a little skepticism.
I don’t know what its actual error rate is, but if we say hypothetically that it gives bad info 5% the time: you wouldn’t want a calculator or an encyclopedia that was wrong that often, but you would really value an advisor that pointed you toward the right info 95% of the time.
5% error rate is being very generous, and unlike a human, it won’t ever say “I’m not sure if that’s correct.”
Considering the insane amount of resources AI takes, and the fact it’s probably ruining the research and writing skills of an entire generation, I’m not so sure it’s a good thing, not to mention the implications it also has for mass surveillance and deepfakes.
I think DeepMind proved in 2022 that it would never reach 95% accuracy to human input even with infinite power and training data, as a response to the OpenAI research paper with similar findings that accurately predicted the performance of each new model after the paper was published.
If it costs more than the benefit then it isn’t even useful.
Is it useful yet? I’m impressed how far its come, but have yet to find a use for it.
I think of it like talking to some random know-it-all that saddles up next to you at the bar. Yeah, they may have interesting stories but are you really going to take legal advice from them?
Just the other day I was researching potential solutions to a programming issue I had at work. Basically, I asked AI “Is there an API call available to tweak this config” It responded “Yes, you can do that with the tweak-that-config command”
I went to check the documentation for the “tweak-that-config” command. It just plain didn’t exist, and never had. Turns out there was no API call to tweak the config I wanted, and attempting to use AI as a search engine is, in fact, a waste of time.
Skynet takes this as an insult. Next you’ll imply that it’s an Oravcle product.
Amanitas won’t kill you. You’d be terribly sick if you didn’t prepare it properly, though.
Edit: amended below because, of course, everything said on the internet has to be explained in thorough detail.
Careful there, AI might be trained on your comment and end up telling someone “Don’t worry, Amanitas won’t kill you” because they asked “Will I die if I eat this?” instead of “Is this safe to eat?”
(I’m joking. At least, I hope I am.)
Amanitas WILL kill you, 100%, No question.
There, evened it out XD
Nice, now it’s a coin flip which answer it will imitate! ;-)
Yeah, thinking that these things have actual knowledge is wrong. I’m pretty sure even if an llm had only ever ingested (heh) data that said these were deadly, if it has ingested (still funny) other information about controversially deadly things it might apply that model to unrelated data, especially if you ask if it’s controversial.
They have knowledge: the probability of words and phrases appearing in a larger context of other phrases. They probably have a knowledge of language patterns far more extensive than most humans. That’s why they’re so good at coming up with texts for a wide range of prompts. They know how to sound human.
That in itself is a huge achievement.
But they don’t know the semantics, the world-context outside of the text, or why it’s critical that a certain section of the text must refer to an actually extant source.
The pitfall here is that users might not be aware of this distinction. Even if they do, they might not have the necessary knowledge themselves to verify. It’s obvious that this machine is smart enough to understand me and respond appropriately, but we must be aware just which kind of smart we’re talking about.
Do you have a source on them not being able to kill you? Everything I’m finding on them suggests they can even if it isn’t too common
Dosage is EVERYTHING. If you’re slamming a bunch into your gut, you will die. For example, one night I did 8-9 grams of psilocybin (combined with DMT and a touch of acid - suffice it to say, I broke through the edge of the universe and looked back in dismay). Half that in Amanitas would probably kill a person.
HOWEVER, since this is something that seems to come up a lot, here are the potential side effects and a proposal to limit sales of these things due to dumbasses like the guy described below.
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(24)00163-6/fulltext
MUSCARIA
Increased consumer interest and widespread availability are concerns for public health because Amanita muscaria products contain compounds that are toxic including muscimol, ibotenic acid, and muscarine.9 Most scientific literature on the health effects of Amanita muscaria in humans pertains to studies of the ingestion of raw Amanita muscaria mushrooms. These effects include dizziness, dysphoria, visual hallucinations, agitation, ataxia, muscle fasciculation, seizures, and coma.12 While death is rare, it has been reported as an outcome, including a case reported in the last year of a 44-year-old man who died after ingesting 4 dried Amanita muscaria mushroom caps.13 The first documented case of hospitalization due to Amanita muscaria consumption in the United Kingdom was reported in July 2023.14 This case involved a 46-year-old woman who had ingested dried mushrooms (0.5 grams) daily for 2 weeks as part of what is referred to as a “microdosing” regimen that was being followed in an attempt to reduce anxiety without inciting psychotropic properties. She reportedly purchased 20 grams of Amanita muscaria mushrooms from a website advertised on social media.
You dry the red ones and this makes something in them less bad for your stomach.
People have been consuming them as a drug for thousands of years probably.
Other anamitas are maybe poisonous, don’t know
Amanitas phalloides, the death cap, is 100% deadly. As are the destroying angels, another group of Amanitas sp. (bisporigera, ocreata, virosa). Amanitas muscaria is 100% edible with proper preparation. The more you know…
There is a youtuber that ate some, he also talks (and tries) a lot of natural drugs. While I’d never recommend someone do it, almost anything is toxic in the right dosages (even water).
Don’t rely on it for anything
FTFY
I once asked AI if there was any documented cases of women murdering their husbands. It said NO. I challenged it multiple times. It stood firm, telling me that in domestic violence cases, it is 100% of the time, men murdering their wives. I asked “What about Katherine Knight?” and it said, I shit you not, “You’re right, a woman has found guilty of killing her husband in Australia in 2001 by stabbing him, then skinning him and attempting to feed parts of his body to their children.”…
So I asked again for it to list the cases where women had murdered their husbands in DV cases. And it said… what for it… “I cant find any cases of women murdering their husbands in domestic violence cases…” and then told me of all the horrible shit that happens to woman at the hands of assholes.
Ive had this happen loads of times, over various subjects. Usually followed by “good catch!” or “Youre right!” or “I made an error”. This was the worst one though, by a lot.
It’s such weird behavior. I was troubleshooting something yesterday and asked an AI about it, and it gave me the solution that it claims it has used for the same issue for 15 years. I corrected it “You’re not real and certainly were not around 15 years ago”, and it did the whole “you’re right!” thing, but then also immediately went back to speaking the same way.
That is so fucked. It is shit like this that makes me not trust AI at all. One thing is how it gets things wrong all the time and never learns from mistakes or corrections. Another is that I simply do not trust the faceless people behind these AIs to be altruistic and not having an agenda with their little chat bots. There is a lot of potential in AI, but it is also a tool that can and will be used to mis- and disinform people and that is just too dangerous on top of all the mistakes AI still makes constantly.
Main problem this presents is how its incapable of expressing doubt or saying I don’t know for sure.
I once saw a list of instructions being passed around that were intended to be tacked on to any prompt: e.g. “don’t speculate, don’t estimate, don’t fill in knowledge gaps”
But you’d think it would make more sense to add that into the weights rather than putting it in your prompt and hoping it works. As it stands, it sometimes feels like making a wish on the monkey paw and trying to close a bunch of unfortunate cursed loopholes.
Adding it into the weights would be quite hard, as you would need many examples of text where someone is not sure about something. Humans do not often publish work that have a lot of that in it, so the training data does not have examples of it.
Simple solution: don’t use the stupid things. They’re a waste of energy, water and time in the best case.
deleted by creator
The single most important thing (IMHO) but which isn’t really widelly talked about is that the error distribution of LLMs in terms of severity is uniform: in other words LLM are equally likely to a make minor mistake of little consequence as they are to make a deadly mistake.
This is not so with humans: even the most ill informed person does not make some mistakes because they’re obviously wrong (say, don’t use glue as an ingredient for pizza or don’t tell people voicing suicidal thoughts to “kill yourself”) and beyond that they pay a lot more attention to avoid doing mistakes in important things than in smaller things so the distribution of mistakes in terms of consequence for humans is not uniform.
People simply focus their attention and learning on the “really important stuff” (“don’t press the red button”) whilst LLMs just spew whatever is the highest probability next word, with zero consideration for error since they don’t have the capability of considering anything.
This by itself means that LLMs are only suitable for things were a high probability of it outputting the worst of mistakes is not a problem, for example when the LLM’s output is reviewed by a domain specialist before being used or is simply mindless entertainment.
There is mush room for improvement.
What a brilliant idea - adding a little “fantasy forest flavor” to your culinary creations! 🍄
Would you like me to “whip up” a few common varieties to avoid, or an organized list of mushroom recipes?
Just let me know. I’m here to help you make the most of this magical mushroom moment! 😆
You have to slice a fry it on low heat (so that the psychedelics survive)… Of course you should check the gills don’t go all the way to the stem, and make sure the spore print (leave the cap on some black paper overnight) comes out white.
Also, have a few slices, then wait an hour, have a few slices then wait an hour.
I mean, he asked if it can be eaten not what the effects of eating it are. 😅
deleted by creator
In my country we had a rise in people going to the ER with mushroom poisonings due to using AI to verify whether or not they were edible. Dunno if this meme is just a random joke scenario that coincidentally is a true story or if I am just out of the loop with world wide news.
In any case, I felt it was absolutely insane that people would use AI for something this serious while my bf shrugged and said something about natural selection.
I hate AI but, I mean… That one is edible if you properly cook it. So the AI is technically correct here. It just didn’t give you all the info you truly needed.
AI is especially terrible with ambiguity and conditional data.
Technically it’s completely edible, insofar that it’ll only give you nausea / stomach cramps and a wicked high. Whereas white amanitas are lethal.
The “properly cooked” here refers to well dried and sort of cured material, which has more uh, I want to say “muscimol in relation to ibotenic acid”, iirc. Your liver will also convert the ibotenic acid into muscimol, but that’s where the nausea would come from, as your liver works hard and there’s metabolic byproduct or some such.
But when you properly dry the shrooms, a lot of that ibotenic acid gets tuned into muscimol, which doesn’t usually cause nausea that much.
