It wasn't wrong. All mushrooms are edible at least once.
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).
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.
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.
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! 😆
There is mush room for improvement.
I mean, he asked if it can be eaten not what the effects of eating it are. 😅
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.
Apparently, that's a fly agaric, which some sources on the internet say can be used to get you high. I still wouldn't do it unless an actual mycologist told me that it was okay
You can, but people rarely do more than once, which should be an indication of how much fun it is.
Not a mycologist but...
Fry in a bit of butter. Taste is really good, i guess the muscimol is also a flavor enhancer. Cooking flashes off the other toxins. If eaten raw it will be a night on the toilet.
Can make you nauseas even when cooked, depends on your biology in general or on a given day. High is similar to alcohol. But it's also a sleep aid similar to ambien.
Red cap with white specks, otherwise white. veil annulus, gilled, white sporeprint. Fruits in late summer through fall.
Back in the 1970s some friends and I ate some fly agaric we found in the botanic gardens, because we'd heard it got you high. The other three went on to have a fantastic time, high as kites, in a nightclub. Me? I spent hours on my knees in front of the toilet, vomiting and vomiting and vomiting. Do not recommend.
Amanite tue-mouche (fly killer).
It can indeed get you high if prepared properly (something about the peeling the skin/dots? Can't remember).
But even if done correctly the high to sick ratio isn't worth it I hear and it's very easy to not prepare it properly. So I heard...
Yep. My ex-girlfriend tried it once and said she spent most of the high vomiting.
One method I heard of is having reindeer eat them, after that their urine becomes psychedelic, without liver damaging toxins.
I've done it a few times. Colours pop, some mood change, but overall it's weak and not worth it. I didn't get negative effects, it's just a crap mushroom experience if you can get ahold of psilocybin mushrooms.
people using ai tools for things they're not good for and then calling the tool bad generally as opposed to bad for said task do a disservice to any real issues currently surrounding the topic such as environmental impact, bias, feedback loops, the collapse of Internet monetization and more.
The difficulty with general models designed to sound human and trained on a wide range of human input is that it'll also imitate human error. In non-critical contexts, that's fine and perhaps even desirable. But when it comes to finding facts, you'd be better served with expert models trained on curated, subject-specific input for a given topic.
I can see an argument for general models to act as "first level" in classifying the topic before passing the request on to specialised models, but that is more expensive and more energy-consuming because you have to spend more time and effort preparing and training multiple different expert models, on top of also training the initial classifier.
Even then, that's still no guarantee that the expert models will be able to infer context and nuance the same way that an actual human expert would. They might be more useful than a set of static articles in terms of tailoring the response to specific questions, but the layperson will have no way of telling whether its output is accurate.
All in all, I think we'd be better served investing in teaching critical reading than spending piles of money on planet-boilers with hard-to-measure utility.
(A shame, really, since I like the concept. Alas, reality gets in the way of a good time.)
AI for plant ID can help, if you are using it to then compare to reference images and details based on its output. Blindly following it would be insane
Don't rely on it for anything, period. (See Caelan Conrad's recent videos on how ChatGPT causes deaths, tw: talk about suicides)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNBoULJkxoU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXRmGxudOC0
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
