I have been recently ‘dipping my toes’ into using the AI assisted search in my browser and testing it by typing in a description of strange fungi specimens that the iNat CV system seems to have real struggles with.
Even though I’ve only used it a few times, it does seem to produce some leads worth following and maybe it’s a worthwhile tool to keep in the box.
I’m wondering if anyone has been using AI text searches for this kind of thing. If so, please share your stories.
Thanks!
this might be of interest, if you’re not already aware of it: https://www.inaturalist.org/blog/95911.
i’ve done this since well before AI entered the zeitgeist.
I’ve heard of a case of someone generating a guide to edible fungi using AI… except some of the edible fungi were deadly. (Insert “everything is edible once” quote)
Therefore I would not trust it too much, but I do not see any problem with using it as a starting point for your own research. I personally would prefer to use a key, when possible, so I learn about the individual steps that lead me to the ID.
DO NOT trust generative AI to give you truthful answers. don’t trust commercial search AIs either. they are notorious for dredging up misinformation and for making up new lies from whole cloth. that’s before even considering the ethics implications. if a product is “free”, what they’re selling is you.
Yeah, AI does not pay attention to small details sometimes.
The positive thing with ChatGPT is that you can provide serveral images and description of any relevant information for it to take into consideration. With CV only one image at the time and location.
And can be severely inaccurate.
Look at books regarding nature and foraging writen by AI.
chatGPT is a known liar and environmentally disastrous.
YES! I don’t like that thing. It’s creepy and can be dangerous.
Like, i mean, y’all need to see this video I watched about AI making foraging books. Please watch it, very interesting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QRis9Wl5sKM&pp=ygUZQUkgbXVzaHJvb20gZm9yYWdpbmcgYm9vaw%3D%3D
I’ve been trying Perplexity.ai to get ID tips and comparisons recently. Perplexity works better for this use than other options like ChatGPT or Claude.ai because Perplexity usually links to its sources. Normal search engines are getting worse and Perplexity is much more efficient at sorting through the results than I am, and it makes handy lists and tables and includes photo references on its own as well. Obviously it’s going to work best for taxa for which there are a lot of identification resources available; I’ve been doing it for difficult but common trees and plants that I haven’t gotten around to learning yet.
Of course you’ll want to double check the sources and compare notes with people with more experience (just like if you were doing it on your own with a search engine), but so far it’s worked pretty well for me.
Thanks for the Perplexity tip. I’ll check it out.
Like you, I wouldn’t depend on AI search results to instantly make a great ID, but I have found that their reference links can be very helpful and usually better curated by the questions I ask than raw SE results which is too often just slow wading through SE results skewed to paid-for ranking.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.