> Only forage with a reliable guide, never an app, ...
Smarter move: Never forage for mushrooms, no matter how reliable your guide supposedly is.
Back when I was in HS, our senior AP Biology teacher - who'd been foraging for mushrooms for 2+ decades, no problems - accidentally poisoned herself. (It couldn't have been destroying angel - she did survive.) Uber-Obvious Lesson for my stupid little teen male brain: If someone that expert and experienced with mushrooms could still suffer a near-fatal oopsie, then I for-sure nevernevereverever wanted to risk my neck by trying it.
This sort of sensationalist title and article are a great part of the reason why models are nerfed by training them to output absurd disclaimers.
Nobody should expect that AI can be relied upon for anything where the cost of an error is catastrophic. This should be obvious, but if it's not, it should be stated ONCE before one gains access to an interface. After that, losing anyone who fails to take notice and suffers as a result is no longer a catastrophe.
I genuinely disagree. It seems to me like the planet is overpopulated, that there is massively unfavourable bias in terms of who reproduces the most and that, imperfect a proxy for intelligence as it may be, lack of common sense of the magnitude in question is a good enough signal to indicate lack of intelligence, which is itself a decent proxy to indicate lack of contribution to society (intelligent does not imply high value, but stupid implies low value).
The notion that human life is precious is a remnant of times when child bearing was risky, life expectancy was short, agriculture was a bunch of mules and a bunch of peasants and medicine was not scientific and we had massive shortages for manual workers.
These days, if we start to lighten up a bit in the lower half of IQ distribution it might be much more of a blessing than a curse.
The problem though is that those marketing this stuff want it to be taken seriously. They have to sell the "I" in AI. They can't tell you "this is a toy and is not intended for real world use for any consequential purpose", because then they wouldn't have a business.
It should be obvious, youre right. But people are being bullshitted and then blamed for believing the bullshit.
Sheesh, yeah - the text of the prompt is "Button Mushroom! Yum!" with the picture of the not-a-button-mushroom. You can push AIs around to say things that are wrong, news at 11.
I'm getting pretty tired of this new sport of "let's come up with these 'gotcha' AI questions so we can create inane headlines like 'Google AI might kill you!!!!'".
This is just so dumb. Humans famously misidentify mushrooms all the time. If you die because you've eaten an AI-misidentified mushroom, I just have to wonder how you made it through life this long.
Why be antagonistic in this curt kind of way? I don't want to see this on HN. It's (quite literally) the only place left on the internet I engage with. You may disagree with me - you may even disagree strongly! But do so (or just ignore me), rather than resorting to the kind of low-quality quips typical to the broader internet.
Advocating for allowing people to die (or otherwise be harmed) because they don't understand any given info space is immoral, no matter how "obvious" you feel that info space is. This is a very common emotional reaction to a wide variety of topics that represents an unrealistic ideology that simply isn't compatible with developed civilization. Other examples include: Internet/data security, industrial/mechanical/electrical safety regulation, self-driving cars, nutritional health, and many more.
This doesn't mean we can't have AI, but it does mean we need to mitigate the problems it presents. And that does not necessarily mean we must attempt to edit/moderate the AI itself (unless we develop effective ways to do so that don't hamstring the AI, but that seems intractable, and may never happen) - we can also address problems like this at other levels (UI level, social level, etc).
As technologists, it's our responsibility to not fall into the common trap of obsessively defending a technology against pragmatic non-technological problems related to it. If you find yourself saying something like "it's your fault for being stupid", that's a very reliable red flag that you might be falling into that trap.
I was taught not to eat unknown mushrooms when I was about 5 years old. Maybe I had to wait until 6 to understand that mushrooms were dangerous specifically because poisonous varieties could easily be confused with edible ones.
Seriously, this is just like the reason why we have to put "do not eat" warnings on a box of tacks.
Unfortunately stupid people get themselves killed every day. Some people drive around rail crossings built to protect them just to save 30 seconds of waiting time and then everyone acts shocked when they get side swiped by a train.
You can't police the stupid out of people and if people are so ravenous they're running round the woods eating every mushroom in sight and have to rely on Google's woeful AI products to not eat a dangerous one, then that really is their own fault.
This is an exaggeration/oversimplification - the choices aren't "save every last dummy" or "do nothing", and you don't have to come anywhere near "ravenously running round the woods eating every mushroom in sight" to be affected by this.
Your survival is your own responsibility. Believe it or not I didn't need to check with Google whether or not to put my head in the oven today. My IQ must be over 9000.
Smarter move: Never forage for mushrooms, no matter how reliable your guide supposedly is.
Back when I was in HS, our senior AP Biology teacher - who'd been foraging for mushrooms for 2+ decades, no problems - accidentally poisoned herself. (It couldn't have been destroying angel - she did survive.) Uber-Obvious Lesson for my stupid little teen male brain: If someone that expert and experienced with mushrooms could still suffer a near-fatal oopsie, then I for-sure nevernevereverever wanted to risk my neck by trying it.