all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Plant ID has its own drawbacks, now I'm actually aware of the major invasive species in my region and I see them everywhere now.

At least I have some cute wild carrots.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Do not trust plant id apps to determine if anything is edible, for a start. The odds of a painful death are just too high. There is no substitute for actually learning plant id fundamentals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah absolutely. A few plant IDs I've tried have said very confidently that a plant is a specific thing, but then after reading descriptions and checking the scientific name it's very clearly not that. It does generally give a good place to start though. So maybe it's not black cohosh but it leads me to find out it's bugbane, for instance.

    I have eaten some things I've foraged, but only things I've checked and double checked don't have any dangerous lookalikes. Thankfully it's hard to go wrong with a blackberry vine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Anyone who dies trusting this shit with their lives was murdered by silicon valley grifters. Man slaughtered by grifters?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes the tech bros have some culpability, but everyone is responsible for what they put in their mouths. If you eat a strange plant without double checking, I mean, you did it to yourself.

    Go ahead and bag on tech bros, I will join you. But I will also save a measure of my scorn for those who believe them to be trustworthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Other universally gud AI

    • text to speech
    • speech to text
    • language translation
  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    the Ai that isn't bad is not getting shoved down my throat every day.

  • source
  • Except its¹ not even useful for that.

    ¹not ai. And if it were there would be ethics/labor concerns.

  • source
  • 53 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 52 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Definitely do not use AI or AI-written guidebooks to differentiate edible mushrooms from poisonous mushrooms

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It clearly says "plant identification"~

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Honestly don’t use any guide book or advice. If you aren’t 100 percent sure on your own maybe just walk away.

    My self personally… even if I was 99.999 percent sure it still wouldn’t be worth the risk. I’ll just buy some mushrooms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    rage against the machine learning

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    People are saying you shouldn't use AI to identify edible mushrooms, which is absolutely correct, but remember that people forage fruits and greens too. Plants are deadly poisonous at a higher rate than mushrooms, so plant ID AI has the potential to be more deadly too.

    And then there's the issue that these ID models are very America and/or Europe centric, and will fail miserably most of the time outside of those contexts. And if they do successfully ID a plant, they won't provide information about it being a noxious invasive in the habitat of the user.

    Like essentially all AI, even when it works it's barely useful at the most surface level only. When it doesn't work, which is often, it's actively detrimental.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I actually think AI for mushroom identification is okay, but as a step in the process. Sometimes you see a mushroom and your like "what is that?". Do a little scan to see what it is. Okay now you have an idea of what it is, but then comes the next part! https://mushroomexpert.com/ there you can go through the list and see if you get a positive ID.

    Like if you're not 100% positive you know what you're foraging why would you take the risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 145 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    analytical AI is great

    generative AI is cancer

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Even analytical AI needs to be questioned and validated before use.

    1. I wouldn’t trust a AI to ID mushrooms for consumption.

    2. I forget the details, but there was a group training a diagnostic model (this was before “AI” became the popular term), and it was giving a lot of false positives. They eventually teased out that it was flagging low quality images because most of the unhealthy examples it was trained on came from poorer countries with less robust healthcare systems; hence the higher rates of the disease and lower quality images from older technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    I've seen a similar thing where the machine learning model started associating rulers with cancer because the images it was fed with known cancer almost always also had a ruler to provide scale to measure the size of the tumor

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    It's like these geoguesser not guessing the country by the plants and streets or houses, but by the camera angle and some imperfections only occuring in pictures taken in that country.

    "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Just dealt with an AI bot this morning when I called a law office. They try so hard to mimic humans. They even added background people talking sounds. But was 100% easily given away when they repeated the same response to my asking to speak with a human. "I will gladly pass on your message to (insert weird pause) "Bill""

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Idk, when I Google Lensed a Sunflower plant, the AI told me it was a Peruvian ground apple....

    It also has a lot of trouble identifying lambs quarters and other common wild weeds.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    probably because Google lens is made to be all-purpose, if you had a model that has been specifically trained to recognize plants, it wouldn't make such obvious mistakes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Try out Flora Incognita, it usually works pretty well, at least in the UK. Though I'm kinda bemused that while often I give it one blurry photo of a leaf and it immediately spits out the 97% confidence answer (and yes, the result's example photos do match the real plant's other parts too), but occasionally it has me take painstaking photos of like 5 different aspects of the plant, then thinks for more than a minute and goes "eeh, 37% that it's this [completely different looking] plant, otherwise no clue".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "AI"'s best uses are the Machine Learning aspects we were already using before we started calling things AI

    It's so painful watching this tech be forced down our throats by marketing departments despite us already discovering all of its best use cases long before the marketing teams got ahold of the tech.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Exactly this. GenAI is pretty much dogshit all around. Machine learning as a concept is nothing new at all, and shoving it under the same marketing umbrella does so much more harm than good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    One of the issues with LLM is that it attracted all attention. Classifiers are generally cool, cheap and saved us from multiple issues (ok face recognition aside 🙂)

    When the AI bubble will burst (because of LLM being expensive and not good enough to replace a person even if they are good in pretending to be a person) all AI will slow down… including classifiers, NLP, etc

    All this because the AI community was obsessed by the Turing test/imitation game 🙄

    Turing was a genius but heck if I am upset with him for coming with this BS 🤣

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I am upset with him for coming with this BS

    It made sense in the context it was devised in. Back then we thought the way to build an AI was to build something that was capable of reasoning about the world.

    The notion that there'd be this massive amount of text generated by a significant percentage of the world's population all typing their thoughts into networked computers for a few decades, coupled with the digitisation of every book written, that could be stitched together in a 1,000,000,000,000-byte model that just spat out the word with the highest chance of being next based on what everyone else in the past had written, producing the illusion of intelligence, would have been very difficult for him to predict.

    Remember, Moore's Law wasn't coined for another 15 years, and personal computers didn't even exist as a sci-fi concept until later still.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I dunno about that. We got a pile of architecture research out of it just waiting for some more tests/implementations.

    And think of how cheap renting compute will be! It’s already basically subsidized, but imagine when all those A100s/H100s are dumped.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you ever are an executive and you need to explain a product idea you made up and don't want to bother with actual proof of concept, then AI has got you.

    If you want custom porn, AI has got you.

    These are its two competing functions. And judging by my last foray into what AI is about, the latter is winning hard.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It didn’t mention the star finder apps!

    Save yourself the money and time. It’s Venus. That cool star you’re looking at? Yeah that’s Venus. Just trust me.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago*

    Honestly good rule about Machine Learning is just "predicting = good, generating = bad." Rest are case by case but usually bad.

    Predict inflation in 3 years - cool
    Predict chance of cancer - cool.

    Generate image or mail or summary or tech article - fuck you.

    Generating speech from text/image is also cool but it's kind of a special case there.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Plant ID is soooo disappointing - works sometimes though.

    Always gotta run the ID, web search for images of the recommendation, compare images to plant.

    Semantic search can be helpful:

    Search mockup showing difference between a lexical search of “Daniel Radcliffe” compared to semantic search of “how rich is the actor who played Harry Potter“ which translates to “net worth Daniel Radcliffe“, sourced from seobility.net

    Guess OP image could be about e.g. Perplexity repeatedly HAMMERING (no caching?) the beautiful open web and slopping out poor syntheses.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Friendly reminder that automatic transmissions were sometimes considered to be artificial intelligence.

    “Fuck business idiots waxing poetic about the inestimable value of LLMs” isn’t a good community name though.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Word to the wise.

    If it looks like a carrot, don't touch it, to dig it up, and especially don't eat it. There are tons of plants in the same familuly of plants that look nearly identical or extremely similar that will give you an extremely bad day, month, year, or death.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It’s a decent evolution of the search engine but you have to ask it for sources and it’s way too expensive for it’s use case.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is it?

    I've found so many fucking errors in AI summaries that I don't trust shit from AI searches when a direct link to a source or wiki could give me better summarized info.

    I guess it's an evolution, but I'm really hoping these mutations prove inferior and it dies off already. But capitalism won't have that with their sunk cost fallacy driven insistence that I just use the inferior product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That’s why I said you have to ask for the source. It’s summary isn’t good but that you can describe something to it in human language instead of focusing on keywords to start your search and that the sources it gives aren’t just ads yet is useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    AI noise reduction and spot removal tools for photo editing get a pass too.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    genAI is the enemy. other kinds are useful.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    +1 for WhoBird

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To be fair, some of the memes are bangers as well.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago

    Honestly I like when it writes for me too. I tend to be very blunt and concise in my messaging and AI just puts that corporate shine and bubbliness on my messages that everyone seems to feel is important.

  • source