61–70 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Infused oils don't fall under most people's mental model of "canning" though.
Now I'm curious whether there's any way to do oil infusion where the oil doesn't create an anaerobic environment. Can you bubble oxygen through oil in a way that would keep aerobic bacterial reactions going, without making the oil go rancid?
And even the "somebody using AI hype to pad their promotion package" answer doesn't really make sense, because "project to use AI to find and summarize definitive sources" is right there :D
More accurate, albeit less sensational headline: "Blindly following instructions from an LLM would have killed me." Not exactly shocking if you take into consideration that at the core, they're simply number predictors.
We know that. The mainstream discussion, use, and personification of LLMs does not suggest that.
I was defending generative AI recently when an article came up about Gemini misidentifying a toxic mushroom: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40682531 . My thought there was that nearly everyone I know knows that toxic mushrooms are easily misidentified, and there have been lots of famous cases (even if many of them are apocryphal) of mushroom experts meeting their demise from a misidentified mushroom. In this ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the oil at issue, as far as I understand, or even the garlic alone. It sounds like the garlic introduces the bacterium and the oil provides plenty of high-energy molecules (fats and some proteins) for explosive growth. Both olive oil and garlic can be stored for a while without issue. Also, I have followed this recipe hundreds of times before with roasted garlic, and it is has not been unsafe or given this r…
Well, exactly. The difference between heating the garlic/oil first makes a world of difference. The questioner deliberately asked "Can I infuse garlic into olive oil without heating it up ?" The only appropriate answer there is "No, not safely", not some long, plausible recipe with perhaps a bizarre caveat on the bottom (as some other commenters have reported seeing) along the lines of "However, some say this recipe…
Of course, the incorrect Gemini answer was listed above that still.
[1] https://news.okstate.edu/articles/agriculture/2020/gedon_hom...
I am extremely skeptical of this Gemini response, and it might be just some redditor farming upvotes. First, literally 100% of the blog posts, reddit replies, recipe books, and so on, will always list botulism as a potential danger of canning just about anything, but especially the common "garlic infused oil" (just do a Google search). It's unlikely that the model decided to trim/ignore this dangerous caveat (again,…
2/3 generated drafts include a "safety" disclaimer about botulism, but 1 doesn't.
It is ironic that after decades of technology taking on more and more independent roles and functions, this most advanced form of technology, this culmination of decades of research and engineering across multiple domains, is almost entirely dependent on human guidance and handling to be of any use.
I was defending generative AI recently when an article came up about Gemini misidentifying a toxic mushroom: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40682531 . My thought there was that nearly everyone I know knows that toxic mushrooms are easily misidentified, and there have been lots of famous cases (even if many of them are apocryphal) of mushroom experts meeting their demise from a misidentified mushroom. In this ca…
I work in the robotics field and we've had a strong debate going since ChatGPT launched. Every debate ends "so, how can you trust it." Trust is at the heart of all machine learning models - some (e.g. decision trees) yield answers that are more interrogable to humans than others (e.g. neural nets). If what you say is a problem, then maybe the solution is either a.) don't do that (i.e. don't design the system to 'always look right'), or b.) add simple disclamer (like we use on signs near urinals to tell people 'don't eat the blue mints').
I use ChatGPT every day now. I use it (and trust it) like (and as much as) one of my human colleagues. I start with an assumption, I ask and I get a response, and then I judge the response based on the variance from expectation. Too high, and I either re-ask or I do deep research to find out why my assumption was so wrong - which is valuable. Very small, and I may ask it again to confirm, or depending on the magnitude of consequences of the decision, I may just assume it's right.
Bottom line, these engines, like any human, don't need to be 100% trustworthy. To me, this new class of models just need to save me time and make me more effective at my job... and they are doing that. They need to be trustworthy enough. What that means is subjective to the user, and that's OK.