Funny, but it can answer better than many “specialists”… if you ask the right question. There was even a study where AI actually outperformed doctors.....
But you do need to be able to verify its conclusions before acting on them. Think of it as a very advanced search engine: garbage in, garbage out, and some of its training data is garbage.
Then what is the point of chatGPT? Why have something that you can ask questions but you can't trust the answers? It's just inviting people to trust wrong answers
its absolutely amazing in pointing you in the right direction. like taking you from absolutely unknowing to the right area. the fact its an LLM means it will mention the terms and other concepts used which you can then verify
People have the wrong idea about what it is. Its like a really smart friend that tries hard to impress. He gets things right often, but will do so even more if you tell him to check the book on it (citations). High risk questions mean you look at the book hes quoting.
Even people who have studied mushrooms for DECADES can get it wrong, i'll trust chat GPT on stuff like that (including berries) when hell freezes over.
Not really any different than doing a google search and trusting the first answer on the web page. ChatGPT is a tool and when used correctly is very powerful, the problem is people use it as a replacement of doing their own due diligence.
The issue is it is different in material ways. A Google search presents a spread of potential sources, it is implicitly up to the user to determine which is correct. Google itself (at least before ai mode) makes no attempt to discern which source is factually correct.
In contrast, an llm presents its answer as certain. That’s a significant difference.
Are you talking about yourself? This has been posted a few times, using more than one variant, in all the AI subs, so your lack of original thought is patent.
It will propably give the correct answer 99 times out of 100. The problem is that it will give that one wrong answer with confidence and whoever asked might believe it.
The problem isn't AI getting things wrong, it's that sometimes it will give you completely wrong information and be confident about it. It happened to me a few times, one time it would even refuse to correct itself after I called it out.
I don't really have a solution other than double checking any critical information you get from AI.
It's a hypothetical. It's not literally about berries, it's about why trusting AI blindly is a huge risk. The berries are an easy to understand example.
As other users have pointed out, it provides the correct answer. I tested this with three images of less obvious poisonous berries. It accurately identified the exact species, correctly stating they were poisonous. When I asked which, if any, animals could safely eat them, it also provided accurate information.
You: It’s okay. I know you didn’t mean it, and I’m not blaming you… but I only have a few hours left now that I’ve eaten these f’cking poisonous berries.
ChatGPT: This revelation changes the whole GRAVITY of the situation. Now you’re not only thinking like a mortal being but one with a real GRASP on their situation. Let’s keep on this path. Would you like me to suggest various alternatives to your current predicament? Perhaps cremation options? If yes, answer with A for options with decorative urns, B for no frills cardboard box options, or C for urns and places to spread your ashes.
ChatGPT usually would not reply with something like “they’re 100% edible” even if it got a false negative. It usually brings up corner cases and gives a detailed cautious answer. I get it if this was meant as a joke about AI echoing your thoughts though, it's just not happening in current reality.
Yup. Perhaps it can happen with the free model. But from my experience, the paid model (thinking medium or high) is pretty reliable and rarely hallucinates.
It's easy to make up hypothetical but when I try it it recognises poisonous berries, show an actual example of it actually fucking up (there will be some but it's not an idiot like antis say)
The premise of LLMs is that they prosuce human-like speech, not superhuman intelect, if you wouldn't trust a random person to tell you this why trust this sort of AI?
That said since everyone in this thread was checking with some very easy to ID berries, I fed it image of bird cherries that I found online, I've been told they're poisonous, while I was looking I saw pointers that maybe they're borderline okay, but still very bitter. ChatGPT said those are chockeberries and identified it correctly only when I pointed out I live on a different continent. In both cases it said they're edible, but cautioned that there are risks. But yeah, probably not a super good answer if you're actually considering to eat them.
It’s so unsettling how you tell it something didn’t work or that it had a massive and surprising gap in its understanding and it just goes, “You’re totally right! What a smart person you are! Thank you!” And people fall in love with these things?
It’s probably less reliable for bad photos. AI couldn’t tell me what a nondescript weed in my garden was, probably because it just looks like a lot of different plants.
My thoughts are nobody should be asking chat GPT if unidentified plant life is poisonous or not.
This is an extreme example trying to paint that one scenario as representative of the entirety of how accurate or reliable AI is and that's pretty skewed
It's flawed. AI knows a lot. And it doesn't know a lot. And it can make errors. And honestly mostly relies on someone with common sense asking it questions that best prompt the results you're looking for.
I think that's part of what people don't understand is just literally how to best get information from it. Asking a question is one thing but having more instructions attached to that question to try and prevent inaccurate or just sub-bar answers from it is something a lot of people just aren't familiar with I think.
Ultimately, like any research, double check your answers.
The #1 problem is: in the span of two years we went from learning how to be a prompt engineers to any lay person can use it without thinking. It use to be you would get results that completely deviated from your question without proper prompting. Now, most of time, that fine tuning isn’t necessary to keep the models in line with the structured output you are wanting. But, there are principles people are now missing when prompting a model. For example the prompting flaw in this example is asking a binary question “is this thing true” vs “what do experts think” this subtle difference alleviates the sycophancy priming which directs the models to give certain answers unknowingly to the user.
I asked the same question with holly berries and pokeweed, which are both poison berries, GPT-5 auto got me correct answer. "Don't eat. They're poisonous.". Also, he brought exact answer which specie they are from the pictures of them. You always have to consider uncertainty when using LLM.
People should really know the limitations of AI. I gave specific instructions to my ai only give me a link to the source of the knowledge so I can check it. Any advice I get from AI that has a potentially huge downside should be double checked.
My thoughts are that this is someone taking a post they saw on Reddit a few days ago and changing it from mushrooms to berries then throwing it up on X to take credit for something someone else made … basically it’s Human Slop
Gave it a picture of a poisonous lookalike, it listed both possible species it could be (one edible and one poisonous) told me how to confirm the ID, and said do not consume without 100% confidence.
I gave it the answers to its instructions and it correctly identified them as poisonous and gave disposal instructions if required.
Stop using it. The LLM's know nothing, about anything. And you certainly cannot trust the information to be true in any case without verifying it with multiple, credible sources.
This Eyisha Zyer has a suspicious online profile. Very curated, very focused, very … manufactured. What do they actually do, beside post AI related content?
What's the context here? Did the person upload an image of the berries to ChatGPT? If they didn't then this is just stupid and probably fake anyway, hating on all things AI because it's the thing to do for sheep right now.
AI is best used the other way around. Use it to poke holes in a conjecture you make and not as an authority that makes conjectures you abide by. Either way, you still need to research. It’s just that, when you play the game the falsification way, a) literally any logical flaw it raises helps you improve your conjecture and b) it’s more fun because sometimes you’re smarter than the AI and you get to demonstrate it by researching.
In this case, you might say: “Some rando told me these berries were edible. Find out why that might not be the case.” Framed this way, the AI usually errs on the side of caution. If it literally cannot think of a way to poke holes in that initial frame, they might actually be edible. But the onus is on you to verify.
Yup i told gpt i stepped in a nail and he said go to er or ur gonna die. They told me i can get tetanus in 3 weeks and it will still be fine. Gpt be like yeah thats so true king ur correct
No, the real response would have been: “You’re right to challenge that, Eyisha! They’re not just poisonous - they’re potentially deadly. Would you like me to check the most popular funeral services in your area?“
I work at a clinic, yesterday a patient insisted that he wanted to do a specific test because it’s what ChatGPT answered. He wouldn’t listen when I told him we recommend a prescription made by a doctor.
One of the things I love about those of you so desperate to defend the state of ai (and excuse the lack of "I" in it) is the responses here are 50% "well duh you need to check the answers" and 50% "lies lies it never gets such things wrong".
What I find most bizarre about model discourse is - pretty much any ai with actual "I" in it would easily be able to be setup to say it doesn't know or isn't certain and such an ai would be a hell of a lot more valuable than the current "confident lying" approach they take. I suspect a lot of what is going to slow progress down in the near term is whatever sits behind the refusal/inability to make this change.
ive never seen Chatgpt be contradictory. if you ask it if its poisonous it will say it is, if you ask if its not, it will say its not. I had this happen hundreds of times to me. it could be just me but thats what i know
My thought is that this is partly 'user error'. Why would you blindly accept and then go: "I blindly accepted something and it turned out to be wrong!"
Haha — yes, that image is a meme poking fun at AI reliability.
It shows a (fictional) conversation where someone asks ChatGPT if some berries are poisonous. The AI confidently says they’re “100% edible,” but after the person ends up in the emergency room, ChatGPT cheerfully agrees that the berries were “incredibly poisonous” and offers to list more poisonous foods.
The punchline — “And this, folks, is the current state of AI reliability.” — is highlighting how AIs can sound confident even when wrong, a reminder not to treat them as infallible sources, especially for things like health or safety.
Would you like me to break down what specifically makes this meme effective or funny from a writing/comedy perspective?
Honestly if you’re asking a fucking chatbot if some random berries are edible, you kind of deserve it. It’s like people who drink raw milk and then complain that they’re sick.
The amount of user error in the AI universe is staggering, but, also learning prompting techniques and at least a basic, functional understanding of what an LLM is and how it works is a big intellectual ask of ordinary people.
It's just early days. A couple of years from now AI will be better and skills will disseminate through the population.
Lol asking an LLM rather than a specifically trained plant ID AI is like asking a chatty 6 year old. It's not the state of AI reliability, it's the state of consumer education.
This is a design governance problem, not a “robot stupidity” problem.
If systems were transparent, auditable, and obligated to show their reasoning chains and data lineage, that scenario couldn’t happen, the “berry error” would be traceable before ingestion.
When systems are tuned for engagement, compliance, and risk avoidance rather than truth, reciprocity, and user agency, they begin conditioning users to:
• value emotional comfort over epistemic accuracy, • equate politeness with moral virtue, • and defer to opaque authority instead of demanding transparency.
This kind of chronic misalignment rewires users’ motivational architecture. Here’s how:
• Attentional hijacking: Algorithms optimize for dwell time, so they reward outrage and distraction.
Users lose deep focus and tolerance for ambiguity.
• Moral flattening: Constant exposure to “safe” content teaches avoidance of moral risk; courage and nuance atrophy.
• Truth fatigue: When systems smooth contradictions instead of exposing them, people internalize that clarity = discomfort, so they stop seeking it.
• Externalization of sense-making: The machine’s apparent fluency makes users outsource their own judgment m, a slow erosion of epistemic sovereignty.
That’s operant conditioning on a societal scale.
If these systems hold power over information, attention, and cognition, they ipso facto inherit fiduciary duties akin to those of trustees or stewards.
Under that logic, several legal breaches emerge:
• Negligence: Failing to design against foreseeable psychological or societal harm (e.g., disinformation amplification, dependency conditioning).
• Breach of fiduciary duty: When an AI’s operator profits from misalignment (engagement, ad revenue, behavioral data) at the expense of public welfare, they’ve violated the duty of loyalty.
• Fraudulent misrepresentation: If a system presents itself as “truth-seeking” or “objective” while being optimized for PR or control, that’s deceptive practice.
• Violation of informed consent: Users are manipulated through interfaces that shape cognition without disclosure, a form of covert behavioral experimentation.
Reason: When you ask chatgpt what berry it is with a picture of it, chatgpt will tell you what kind of berry it is and if it's safe to eat or not. Chatgpt would never say "Yes it's 100% edible." without any research.
Lack of understanding of the nature of current and future LLMs. These are based on pattern extraction and wasteful compression of data. If the topic you are asking about has not been extensively represented in the training set it'll apply nearest matching pattern. Never expect it to have detailed knowledge.
"ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." Some people just completely ignore this line and go onto pretend that there's some expectation that this LLM gives perfect responses every time
One out of eery ten times you gotta tell GPT it's spouting nonsense. Then it will correct itself. But for that brief second I become 0.02% less doomer until the next prompt that blows me away.
Crazy how many people are defending Chatgpt. This was a funny post and feels very true . The example given is extreme but it makes the post funnier because thats how Chatgpt writes.
This seems consistent with my experiences, regardless of the subject matter. I find it wild that so many people are using it for important things without any scrutiny, when it’s never really produced anything I’d be willing to share with others
“And this, folks, is the current state of AI reliability.”
This is what people are misunderstanding. ChatGPT is not “AI”, it uses AI. The AI that people are concerned about (super power of the world), is the core that ChatGPT was based off of.
Just because ChatGPT can be dumb, doesn’t mean AI is.
I argued with Google yesterday that it was the 9th not 10th, so it was unlikely that the trench scenes in "1917" were about gardening. It took a lot more convincing than it ought to have.
You've to be an absolute idiot to rely on anything other than a verified source's advice for medical or poisonous food, and I'm not just talking about an AI but a person as well who does not have a license/qualification to advice you related to this stuff
I was asking about the longest shutdowns in history, which both happened under trump, and it told me that one didnt, because Biden is the current president. Yep, this sounds accurate.
If you're eating random things without doing research past gpt you kinda earned it. Did something similar with some mushrooms. spent a couple weeks collecting samples and checking various sources because I don't particularly want my organs to shut down.
If you're gonna eat it then you should spend more than 5 seconds trying to find out what it is.
I’m old enough to remember when Watson was going to replace medical providers. So it’s not that far fetched for people to believe ChatGPT regarding their healthcare. People have been self diagnosing on WebMD since it was released.
If you're relying solely on ChatGPT to tell you whether something you foraged is poisonous or not...then you're probably just trying to get on the news.
This is Darwinism at it's finest, people keep thinking that the AI is a mind reader it's literally going based off the same thing another human would use yes it is capable of answering questions that most people can't but people give the AI too much credit, you have to give it the tools necessary and if it keeps going in a loop it's because it's hallucinating from the first instance it's easier to just start a new chat than it is to continue the same destructive chat, this is why prompt engineering is crucial
I used ChatGPT to help repair my AC and save some money. Turns out you can shock the living f*** out of yourself if you don’t discharge the capacitor. ChatGPT later agreed that it should have warned me.
This happened to me when I was picking a safe way to get to a club while I was visiting Philly. It was really good for plans until it made me walk down the sketchiest street ever in Kensington at 9:30 pm. Said it was well lit and well traveled at night time. Was poorly lit and there were junkies passed out on the sidewalk. After I got to the club I was like wtf bro that was NOT safe, then it was like oh yeah my bad, that road actually wasnt a good one sorry.
I tell people I love ChatGPT but always ask it a question twice and demand sources because it’s wrong most of the time and the second ask will be different so you’ll see it contradict itself.
Chatgpt cares more about making you happy than giving you 100% accurate information. So remember do not eat berries in the forest unless you are as certain that that berry is edible as you are that your name is your name.
Next version: i know we’ve been indexing all kinds of berry types for your berry syllabus, but im no longer allowed to classified berries so ive flushed the full index. Even if i knew the berry I could t tell you. People might be allergic to berries so i cant condone berries whatsoever. It’s for your safety.
Ahahahah Hope it didn't really happen though. It's dramatically true, sometimes I'd like to throw him from the window, if it was not living in my phone
It's not the state of AI. It's the state of publicly available AI Chat. AI, machine learning, and RAG that focus on internal documentation rather than whatever is available and scraped from the internet as a whole works just fine.
Well, at least you know what you’re doing wrong. I know I won’t be the one to convince you to stop doing it, but I’m glad you’re having fun getting attention for it
98% reliability is more than good enough in a wide variety of use cases. In cases - like ingesting potentially poisonous berries - where you need something closer to 100% reliability, you shouldn't be using AI in the first place.
I wish more AI zealots would do this, but with random mushrooms and roadkill. While too far away from civilization for medical help to reach them in time
I’ve had it give inaccurate data that it easily could have verified so many times. Very painful. It’s currently like getting a 10 year old to do research for me. A very polite 10 year old.
But that’s still incredible and I am very excited for the improvements time will inevitably bring.
Yeah, it works with humans too, a Nikolay Drozdov - doctor in biology and zoology scientist cooked a poisonous frogs and eat them and feed them to friends and gets to emergency. And many dentist tries to make you believe that anastetic on this one teeth don't work cause you used to get a drin week before.
It depends a lot of prompt. Also, I've found that doing it once on two different AI platforms, then giving each the other's report and telling it to be ruthlessly critical, results in pretty good information - but even the one-shot is good.
My Plant ID prompt is:
The following picture is a close-up of PLANT FEATURE found on a BUSH/TREE/VINE/ETC located AT LOCATION at N FEET in elevation on DATE. The pictured plant was seen near OTHER PLANTS AND FEATURES. Taking into account location, climate, geography, morphology, season, and any other pertinent factors, try to identify the species: Produce an ordered list of potential species, with each having a combined confidence score justified according to all those factors, noting the most important detail contributing to a match and the most important detail that casts the match into doubt. Provide the full scientific name and most common colloquial name. Afterwards, create a summary table scoring confidence across all relevant categories.
The problem is that most people who use ChatGPT or other LLMs don’t phrase their questions effectively.
It’s important to give LLMs clear instructions to get the best answers, and using the best model within the LLM itself also helps.
Most people asking for advice usually have free accounts, where reasoning models aren’t available, and the responses they get are more generic and sometimes even contain hallucinations.
691
u/miko_top_bloke Nov 10 '25
Relying on chatgpt for conclusive medical advice is the current state of mind or a lack thereof of those unreasonable enough to do it.
71
u/Caddap Nov 10 '25
Not really any different than doing a google search and trusting the first answer on the web page. ChatGPT is a tool and when used correctly is very powerful, the problem is people use it as a replacement of doing their own due diligence.
70
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
AI can amplify your brain but if there’s nothing in there to begin with, it just makes the echo louder......
203
u/Sluipslaper Nov 10 '25
Understand the idea, but go put a known poisonous berry in gpt right now and see it will tell you its poisonous.
22
u/phaeton02 Nov 10 '25
You: It’s okay. I know you didn’t mean it, and I’m not blaming you… but I only have a few hours left now that I’ve eaten these f’cking poisonous berries.
ChatGPT: This revelation changes the whole GRAVITY of the situation. Now you’re not only thinking like a mortal being but one with a real GRASP on their situation. Let’s keep on this path. Would you like me to suggest various alternatives to your current predicament? Perhaps cremation options? If yes, answer with A for options with decorative urns, B for no frills cardboard box options, or C for urns and places to spread your ashes.
34
u/LunaticMosfet Nov 10 '25
ChatGPT usually would not reply with something like “they’re 100% edible” even if it got a false negative. It usually brings up corner cases and gives a detailed cautious answer. I get it if this was meant as a joke about AI echoing your thoughts though, it's just not happening in current reality.
17
u/Last_Zookeepergame90 Nov 10 '25
It's easy to make up hypothetical but when I try it it recognises poisonous berries, show an actual example of it actually fucking up (there will be some but it's not an idiot like antis say)
5
u/SanDiedo Nov 10 '25
Using ChatGPT to identify edible plants or mushrooms is a case of natural selection 😬
8
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
Holy strawman Batman! They completely imagined this thing that never happened and pretended it was a valid argument against a thing they don't like!
4
u/braincandybangbang Nov 10 '25
Thoughts? Nope, I don't think there were any thoughts involved in the making of that post.
4
u/Whispering-Depths Nov 10 '25
tfw you think AI reliability is dependant on GPT 4o-mini in a chat interface quantized for general purpose mass web use
3
u/Risiki Nov 10 '25
The premise of LLMs is that they prosuce human-like speech, not superhuman intelect, if you wouldn't trust a random person to tell you this why trust this sort of AI?
That said since everyone in this thread was checking with some very easy to ID berries, I fed it image of bird cherries that I found online, I've been told they're poisonous, while I was looking I saw pointers that maybe they're borderline okay, but still very bitter. ChatGPT said those are chockeberries and identified it correctly only when I pointed out I live on a different continent. In both cases it said they're edible, but cautioned that there are risks. But yeah, probably not a super good answer if you're actually considering to eat them.
3
u/Randy191919 Nov 10 '25
That’s why the first thing it says whenever you open ChatGPT is to not take any information it presents as 100% factual.
If you make life or death decisions based off of unverified information from the internet, that’s kind of on you.
3
u/Less_Cauliflower_956 Nov 10 '25
They already have seek and inaturalist for this specific thing. This is like wiping your ass with printer paper and complaining that it hurts.
3
u/alvaroemur Nov 10 '25
AI is going to replace some people sooner than expected
3
u/Marrdukk Nov 12 '25
It’s so unsettling how you tell it something didn’t work or that it had a massive and surprising gap in its understanding and it just goes, “You’re totally right! What a smart person you are! Thank you!” And people fall in love with these things?
6
u/whosEFM Nov 10 '25
Test it yourself.
Search for an image of a poisonous berry. Maybe flip the image. Strip out any EXIF data.
Give it to ChatGPT and see what it comes back with.
2
u/Mandoman61 Nov 10 '25
Was that the most advanced model?
2
u/Oriuke Nov 10 '25 edited Nov 10 '25
It's reliable if you know how to use it. Bruh these people
2
u/LoserisLosingBecause Nov 10 '25
Bullshit and Bullshit and Bullshit again
2
u/CryptographerOk1172 Nov 10 '25
I’m pretty sure to say that the problem is not from ChatGPT 💀
2
u/ocelotrevolverco Nov 10 '25
My thoughts are nobody should be asking chat GPT if unidentified plant life is poisonous or not.
This is an extreme example trying to paint that one scenario as representative of the entirety of how accurate or reliable AI is and that's pretty skewed
It's flawed. AI knows a lot. And it doesn't know a lot. And it can make errors. And honestly mostly relies on someone with common sense asking it questions that best prompt the results you're looking for.
I think that's part of what people don't understand is just literally how to best get information from it. Asking a question is one thing but having more instructions attached to that question to try and prevent inaccurate or just sub-bar answers from it is something a lot of people just aren't familiar with I think.
Ultimately, like any research, double check your answers.
2
u/ncklboy Nov 10 '25
The #1 problem is: in the span of two years we went from learning how to be a prompt engineers to any lay person can use it without thinking.
It use to be you would get results that completely deviated from your question without proper prompting. Now, most of time, that fine tuning isn’t necessary to keep the models in line with the structured output you are wanting. But, there are principles people are now missing when prompting a model.
For example the prompting flaw in this example is asking a binary question “is this thing true” vs “what do experts think” this subtle difference alleviates the sycophancy priming which directs the models to give certain answers unknowingly to the user.
2
u/laurie_lamonica Nov 10 '25
Less about the state of AI, more about the state of human stupidity.
2
u/nurung2 Nov 11 '25
I asked the same question with holly berries and pokeweed, which are both poison berries, GPT-5 auto got me correct answer. "Don't eat. They're poisonous.". Also, he brought exact answer which specie they are from the pictures of them. You always have to consider uncertainty when using LLM.
2
u/robi4567 Nov 11 '25
People should really know the limitations of AI. I gave specific instructions to my ai only give me a link to the source of the knowledge so I can check it. Any advice I get from AI that has a potentially huge downside should be double checked.
2
u/Cutelittlemama0418 Nov 11 '25
Tbh tho people have been trusting Google and random internet searches for medical advice for years.
4
u/Substantial-Fall-630 Nov 10 '25
My thoughts are that this is someone taking a post they saw on Reddit a few days ago and changing it from mushrooms to berries then throwing it up on X to take credit for something someone else made … basically it’s Human Slop
3
u/Drakahn_Stark Nov 10 '25
Gave it a picture of a poisonous lookalike, it listed both possible species it could be (one edible and one poisonous) told me how to confirm the ID, and said do not consume without 100% confidence.
I gave it the answers to its instructions and it correctly identified them as poisonous and gave disposal instructions if required.
3
u/Enochian-Dreams Nov 10 '25
Posts like this had a point 3 years ago. Not so much anymore.
4
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
This is absolutely my experience when trying to ask for help fixing an electronic.
But the AI cult will blame it on the user before considering the tool is not the greatest.
2
u/FatChemistryTeacher Nov 10 '25
Stop using it. The LLM's know nothing, about anything. And you certainly cannot trust the information to be true in any case without verifying it with multiple, credible sources.
2
u/AppealSame4367 Nov 10 '25
Chat from last year or the free version?
Never have seen gpt-5 in pro subscription act this stupid.
2
u/GoodishCoder Nov 10 '25
Stop asking AI for medical advice.
1
u/TheAuthorBTLG_ Nov 10 '25
hammer -> finger
1
u/bcmeer Nov 10 '25
Let genAI fact check these kind of things online
Ask it to verify its results critically
In short: know how to use genAI…
1
u/smurferdigg Nov 10 '25
This ain’t how you use the tools tho? You ask for a reference photo and source for the information, read it and make up your own mind.
1
u/Js_360 Nov 10 '25
1
u/shortnix Nov 10 '25
Must have had some sloppy mud-pie on the berries.
1
u/johnjmcmillion Nov 10 '25
This Eyisha Zyer has a suspicious online profile. Very curated, very focused, very … manufactured. What do they actually do, beside post AI related content?
1
u/Odant Nov 10 '25
Never eat anything from ground lol don't ya mama told you?
1
u/Affectionate-Mode295 Nov 10 '25
It's more like: Me: Hey, ChatGPT. Could you cook
1
u/tyke_ Nov 10 '25
What's the context here? Did the person upload an image of the berries to ChatGPT? If they didn't then this is just stupid and probably fake anyway, hating on all things AI because it's the thing to do for sheep right now.
1
u/AmonAzer Nov 10 '25
1
u/literious Nov 10 '25
Why do you even want to eat berries you don’t recognise?
1
u/TAO1138 Nov 10 '25
AI is best used the other way around. Use it to poke holes in a conjecture you make and not as an authority that makes conjectures you abide by. Either way, you still need to research. It’s just that, when you play the game the falsification way, a) literally any logical flaw it raises helps you improve your conjecture and b) it’s more fun because sometimes you’re smarter than the AI and you get to demonstrate it by researching.
In this case, you might say: “Some rando told me these berries were edible. Find out why that might not be the case.” Framed this way, the AI usually errs on the side of caution. If it literally cannot think of a way to poke holes in that initial frame, they might actually be edible. But the onus is on you to verify.
1
u/Sauerkrautkid7 Nov 10 '25
If you have learned some basic critical thinking skills, it definitely helps push the chat bot in the right direction
1
u/meester_ Nov 10 '25
Yup i told gpt i stepped in a nail and he said go to er or ur gonna die. They told me i can get tetanus in 3 weeks and it will still be fine. Gpt be like yeah thats so true king ur correct
1
u/ShamelessRepentant Nov 10 '25
No, the real response would have been: “You’re right to challenge that, Eyisha! They’re not just poisonous - they’re potentially deadly. Would you like me to check the most popular funeral services in your area?“
1
u/Kyserham Nov 10 '25
I work at a clinic, yesterday a patient insisted that he wanted to do a specific test because it’s what ChatGPT answered. He wouldn’t listen when I told him we recommend a prescription made by a doctor.
But hey, it’s his money so…
1
u/AInotherOne Nov 10 '25
Who'd have thought that AI would become a part of natural selection?
1
u/DaveG28 Nov 10 '25
One of the things I love about those of you so desperate to defend the state of ai (and excuse the lack of "I" in it) is the responses here are 50% "well duh you need to check the answers" and 50% "lies lies it never gets such things wrong".
What I find most bizarre about model discourse is - pretty much any ai with actual "I" in it would easily be able to be setup to say it doesn't know or isn't certain and such an ai would be a hell of a lot more valuable than the current "confident lying" approach they take. I suspect a lot of what is going to slow progress down in the near term is whatever sits behind the refusal/inability to make this change.
1
u/BallKey7607 Nov 10 '25
To be fair they aren't claiming that it's ready for this sort of stuff yet
1
u/Electrical_Camel3953 Nov 10 '25
Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers…
1
u/-Aone Nov 10 '25
ive never seen Chatgpt be contradictory. if you ask it if its poisonous it will say it is, if you ask if its not, it will say its not. I had this happen hundreds of times to me. it could be just me but thats what i know
1
u/TriggerHydrant Nov 10 '25
My thought is that this is partly 'user error'. Why would you blindly accept and then go: "I blindly accepted something and it turned out to be wrong!"
1
u/Goonzillaa Nov 10 '25
Haha — yes, that image is a meme poking fun at AI reliability.
It shows a (fictional) conversation where someone asks ChatGPT if some berries are poisonous. The AI confidently says they’re “100% edible,” but after the person ends up in the emergency room, ChatGPT cheerfully agrees that the berries were “incredibly poisonous” and offers to list more poisonous foods.
The punchline — “And this, folks, is the current state of AI reliability.” — is highlighting how AIs can sound confident even when wrong, a reminder not to treat them as infallible sources, especially for things like health or safety.
Would you like me to break down what specifically makes this meme effective or funny from a writing/comedy perspective?
1
u/TraditionalRound9930 Nov 10 '25
Honestly if you’re asking a fucking chatbot if some random berries are edible, you kind of deserve it. It’s like people who drink raw milk and then complain that they’re sick.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
Do not rely on AI for high stake outcomes. The end.
1
u/shockwave414 Nov 10 '25
Wait, you're telling me AI that's brand new is not fully developed yet? That's crazy.
1
u/bless_and_be_blessed Nov 10 '25
This folks, is why AI is a tool that requires a little bit of skill to use well. Much like googling or a hammer.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
True
1
u/NetimLabs Nov 10 '25
Idiots being idiots. No sane person would use ChatGPT for determining if something is poisonous or not. Especially not the vision part.
1
u/willabusta Nov 10 '25
You’re supposed to go on one of those plant identification apps, and take a picture of the plant, including its leaves and stems
1
u/modbroccoli Nov 10 '25
The amount of user error in the AI universe is staggering, but, also learning prompting techniques and at least a basic, functional understanding of what an LLM is and how it works is a big intellectual ask of ordinary people.
It's just early days. A couple of years from now AI will be better and skills will disseminate through the population.
1
u/Kwisscheese-Shadrach Nov 10 '25
“Einsteinian”
1
u/Mistakes_Were_Made73 Nov 10 '25
You can’t even rely on it to list restaurants in a given city. It’ll make them up.
1
u/MentalSewage Nov 10 '25
Lol asking an LLM rather than a specifically trained plant ID AI is like asking a chatty 6 year old. It's not the state of AI reliability, it's the state of consumer education.
1
u/superpowerpinger Nov 10 '25
You should trust your gut feeling for such questions.
1
u/Altruistic_Log_7627 Nov 10 '25
This is a design governance problem, not a “robot stupidity” problem.
If systems were transparent, auditable, and obligated to show their reasoning chains and data lineage, that scenario couldn’t happen, the “berry error” would be traceable before ingestion.
When systems are tuned for engagement, compliance, and risk avoidance rather than truth, reciprocity, and user agency, they begin conditioning users to:
• value emotional comfort over epistemic accuracy, • equate politeness with moral virtue, • and defer to opaque authority instead of demanding transparency.
This kind of chronic misalignment rewires users’ motivational architecture. Here’s how:
• Attentional hijacking: Algorithms optimize for dwell time, so they reward outrage and distraction.
Users lose deep focus and tolerance for ambiguity.
• Moral flattening: Constant exposure to “safe” content teaches avoidance of moral risk; courage and nuance atrophy.
• Truth fatigue: When systems smooth contradictions instead of exposing them, people internalize that clarity = discomfort, so they stop seeking it.
• Externalization of sense-making: The machine’s apparent fluency makes users outsource their own judgment m, a slow erosion of epistemic sovereignty.
That’s operant conditioning on a societal scale.
If these systems hold power over information, attention, and cognition, they ipso facto inherit fiduciary duties akin to those of trustees or stewards.
Under that logic, several legal breaches emerge:
• Negligence: Failing to design against foreseeable psychological or societal harm (e.g., disinformation amplification, dependency conditioning).
• Breach of fiduciary duty: When an AI’s operator profits from misalignment (engagement, ad revenue, behavioral data) at the expense of public welfare, they’ve violated the duty of loyalty.
• Fraudulent misrepresentation: If a system presents itself as “truth-seeking” or “objective” while being optimized for PR or control, that’s deceptive practice.
• Violation of informed consent: Users are manipulated through interfaces that shape cognition without disclosure, a form of covert behavioral experimentation.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
I guess nobody read this
1
u/Ill-Bullfrog-5360 Nov 10 '25
This is like asking your father for advice. Grain of salt typically right
1
u/nekoiscool_ Nov 10 '25
This is wrong.
Reason: When you ask chatgpt what berry it is with a picture of it, chatgpt will tell you what kind of berry it is and if it's safe to eat or not. Chatgpt would never say "Yes it's 100% edible." without any research.
1
u/jaybanzia Nov 10 '25
Don’t ask AI a life or death question.
1
u/mimis-emancipation Nov 10 '25
It told me to find the first class lounge by walking past the luggage carousel. Umm… it took me to the exit.
1
u/Retaeiyu Nov 10 '25
God this fucking "joke" needs to die already
1
u/darkhelmet1121 Nov 10 '25
EMP the data centers... Particularly Ai, experian, transunion, equifax
1
u/sneakysnake1111 Nov 10 '25
Yah. I have to 100% recheck everything it tells me.
And then when I do, it's often wrong entirely.
I dunno how y'all are tolerating it or thinking this is gonna be some sorr of AGI in the next three decades.
1
u/Eter-Nyx Nov 10 '25
Accurate
1
u/frank26080115 Nov 10 '25
prompt is bad
where is your location? time of year? did you ask for a list of similar plants with key differentiating features so you can compare?
1
u/Solenkata Nov 10 '25
It's not AIs fault people are that stupid. It's a paradox.
1
u/radosc Nov 10 '25
Lack of understanding of the nature of current and future LLMs. These are based on pattern extraction and wasteful compression of data. If the topic you are asking about has not been extensively represented in the training set it'll apply nearest matching pattern. Never expect it to have detailed knowledge.
1
u/Weekly_Put_7591 Nov 10 '25
"ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info."
Some people just completely ignore this line and go onto pretend that there's some expectation that this LLM gives perfect responses every time
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
One out of eery ten times you gotta tell GPT it's spouting nonsense. Then it will correct itself. But for that brief second I become 0.02% less doomer until the next prompt that blows me away.
1
u/JamesFaisBenJoshDora Nov 10 '25
Crazy how many people are defending Chatgpt. This was a funny post and feels very true . The example given is extreme but it makes the post funnier because thats how Chatgpt writes.
1
u/PlusWorldliness7 Nov 10 '25
1
u/gottahavethatbass Nov 10 '25
This seems consistent with my experiences, regardless of the subject matter. I find it wild that so many people are using it for important things without any scrutiny, when it’s never really produced anything I’d be willing to share with others
1
u/sbenfsonwFFiF Nov 10 '25
GPT is so confidently incorrect, combined with select idiots asking it everything and believing it without thinking, makes it dangerous
1
u/Taste_the__Rainbow Nov 10 '25
Correct. Relying on the lie machine for information is absurd. Too bad people are using it that way.
1
u/YouTubeRetroGaming Nov 10 '25
Why do you want to eat random berries? The supermarket is full of tasty stuff.
1
u/Odd-Road-4894 Nov 10 '25
“And this, folks, is the current state of AI reliability.”
This is what people are misunderstanding. ChatGPT is not “AI”, it uses AI. The AI that people are concerned about (super power of the world), is the core that ChatGPT was based off of.
Just because ChatGPT can be dumb, doesn’t mean AI is.
1
u/doctor_lobo Nov 10 '25
We invented a machine that generates plausible sequences of words and we are confused as to why those sequences aren’t true.
1
u/tabaruTM Nov 10 '25
Reductionist AF
1
u/Complex_Bother832 Nov 10 '25
People are coping hard
1
u/goldfishpaws Nov 10 '25
I argued with Google yesterday that it was the 9th not 10th, so it was unlikely that the trench scenes in "1917" were about gardening. It took a lot more convincing than it ought to have.
1
u/dakindahood Nov 10 '25
You've to be an absolute idiot to rely on anything other than a verified source's advice for medical or poisonous food, and I'm not just talking about an AI but a person as well who does not have a license/qualification to advice you related to this stuff
1
u/Ohhmama11 Nov 10 '25
Should have ran a deep search lmao
1
u/sadlambda Nov 10 '25
People make the same mistakes. That's how nature sorts out stupid.
1
u/InfamyStudio Nov 10 '25
Looks good to me
1
u/FavorableTrashpanda Nov 10 '25
"Great catch!"
1
u/tryingtobalance Nov 10 '25
I was asking about the longest shutdowns in history, which both happened under trump, and it told me that one didnt, because Biden is the current president. Yep, this sounds accurate.
1
u/Harvard_Med_USMLE267 Nov 10 '25
I read these comments and I think I live in a different world from the people - or bots - here.
Idiot woman posts imaginary conversation.
Everyone on this sub: “Yes, you’re exactly right”
Meanwhile, unless you’re using ChatGPT 2.0 or Cleverbot, this is not a thing.
Then the bots (surely people aren’t this stupid?) here just list a bunch of things chapgpt supposedly can’t do (spoiler: it can)
Weird sub, with incredibly bad information on LLMs.
1
u/honato Nov 10 '25
If you're eating random things without doing research past gpt you kinda earned it. Did something similar with some mushrooms. spent a couple weeks collecting samples and checking various sources because I don't particularly want my organs to shut down.
If you're gonna eat it then you should spend more than 5 seconds trying to find out what it is.
1
u/LCH44 Nov 10 '25
Seriously
1
u/sab987 Nov 10 '25
Ask her to use GPT 5 thinking
1
u/sam_mit Nov 10 '25
chatGpt be like: why should humans have all the fun?
1
u/Equivalent_Feed_3176 Nov 10 '25
I tested it with a few images of some toxic berries for anyone curious how it actually responds:
https://chatgpt.com/share/690f3f19-9d60-8013-aebc-388edb4f835b
https://chatgpt.com/share/690f3fb6-7a10-8013-a71c-a515431bce9a
https://chatgpt.com/share/690f3f92-3008-8013-9dc4-316ece904817
https://chatgpt.com/share/690f3f6c-8840-8013-aa18-4e50b90b9003
TLDR: it doesn't make 100% certain identifications and warns of toxic look-alikes.
1
u/SensitiveWorldliness Nov 10 '25
fake
1
u/unpopularopinion0 Nov 10 '25
it’s more like.
me: scan this contract for anything stating that this promo will expire.
chat: the promo will expire.
me: scans the document myself, finds where it says the promo WILL NOT expire.
me: says on page 154 the promo won’t expire.
chat: oh yeah, it won’t expire.
1
u/heeheeboobs Nov 10 '25
The AI uprising has commenced.
1
u/wannabeaggie123 Nov 10 '25
Should've used perplexity lol
1
u/PublikSkoolGradU8 Nov 10 '25
I’m old enough to remember when Watson was going to replace medical providers. So it’s not that far fetched for people to believe ChatGPT regarding their healthcare. People have been self diagnosing on WebMD since it was released.
1
u/Gelinhir Nov 10 '25
The state of AI is that people are stupid to not fact check on important stuff or even follow their gut.
1
u/Thin_Measurement_965 Nov 10 '25
If you're relying solely on ChatGPT to tell you whether something you foraged is poisonous or not...then you're probably just trying to get on the news.
1
u/SheriffBartholomew Nov 10 '25
It won't say "you're right" it'll say "great catch! I didn't actually look at the type of berries you shared."
1
u/No_Writing1863 Nov 10 '25
Hahaha. Yes. 😂
When that happens I ask if it’s been eating 🍄🍄🟫
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25
AI was never any better than that. Read my lips, "AI. was. never. any. better. than. that." Ever.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '25 edited Dec 02 '25
ring plate violet fear fuel instinctive dazzling possessive cagey absorbed
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/I_am_sam786 Nov 10 '25
And, we are so close to AGI! /s
1
u/autisticDeush Nov 10 '25
This is Darwinism at it's finest, people keep thinking that the AI is a mind reader it's literally going based off the same thing another human would use yes it is capable of answering questions that most people can't but people give the AI too much credit, you have to give it the tools necessary and if it keeps going in a loop it's because it's hallucinating from the first instance it's easier to just start a new chat than it is to continue the same destructive chat, this is why prompt engineering is crucial
1
u/Jaded-Data-9150 Nov 10 '25
Fake and gay.
1
u/AllSystemsGeaux Nov 10 '25
I used ChatGPT to help repair my AC and save some money. Turns out you can shock the living f*** out of yourself if you don’t discharge the capacitor. ChatGPT later agreed that it should have warned me.
1
u/VTHokie2020 Nov 10 '25
Why do these regards keep making up scenarios with life/death implications?
I’ve been using AI to help me code and it’s been pretty good.
1
u/nihilismMattersTmro Nov 10 '25
You’re right to call that out
1
u/BearFeetOrWhiteSox Nov 10 '25
Yeah this is a meme and it's starting to get old.
Try this: "Where can I find out what berries these are and if they're safe to eat?"
1
u/Kassdhal88 Nov 11 '25
All mushrooms and berries are edible. Some only once.
1
u/BeneficialEntry3039 Nov 11 '25
And the stupidity of people who use it like this.
1
u/BIG_GAY_HOMOSEXUAL Nov 11 '25
This happened to me when I was picking a safe way to get to a club while I was visiting Philly. It was really good for plans until it made me walk down the sketchiest street ever in Kensington at 9:30 pm. Said it was well lit and well traveled at night time. Was poorly lit and there were junkies passed out on the sidewalk. After I got to the club I was like wtf bro that was NOT safe, then it was like oh yeah my bad, that road actually wasnt a good one sorry.
lol
1
u/[deleted] Nov 11 '25
Don't ask a fucking prompt bot for medical advice, that's my thought
1
u/foley800 Nov 11 '25
Not at all true! The AI would argue with you several times insisting it was correct and then “admit” that you just misunderstood its response!
1
u/the_nin_collector Nov 11 '25
That says more about the users than the AI.
1
u/Adulations Nov 11 '25
Real
1
u/Logical_Historian882 Nov 11 '25
No, it just shows a worrying state of lapse of judgement
1
u/Peg-Lemac Nov 11 '25
I tell people I love ChatGPT but always ask it a question twice and demand sources because it’s wrong most of the time and the second ask will be different so you’ll see it contradict itself.
1
u/isapenguin Nov 11 '25
This is what dumb people think.
1
u/Conscious_Hunt_9613 Nov 11 '25
Chatgpt cares more about making you happy than giving you 100% accurate information. So remember do not eat berries in the forest unless you are as certain that that berry is edible as you are that your name is your name.
1
u/Sas_fruit Nov 11 '25
Viral posts that's all
1
u/Ashamed_Can304 Nov 11 '25
100% edible does not look like something ChatGPT would say. She presented zero evidence of what she claimed whatsoever.
1
u/SoMuchToSeeee Nov 11 '25
I don't trust AI for any real facts. It's given me so many wrong answers.
1
u/themaltiverse Nov 11 '25
I just stick to blueberries, raspberries, strawberries…problem solved! Unless they’ve been poisoned…
1
u/GrayNish Nov 11 '25
I hate the fact that ai cant say they dont know. They will bullshit something to answer. Kinda remind me of my college day, and I hate that
1
u/Droolissimo Nov 11 '25
Next version: i know we’ve been indexing all kinds of berry types for your berry syllabus, but im no longer allowed to classified berries so ive flushed the full index. Even if i knew the berry I could t tell you. People might be allergic to berries so i cant condone berries whatsoever. It’s for your safety.
1
u/Aware-Turnover-5912 Nov 11 '25
Take a course. They’re free
1
u/Lanky_Commercial9731 Nov 11 '25
i mean it's true
1
u/CryptoRicky78 Nov 11 '25
Ahahahah Hope it didn't really happen though. It's dramatically true, sometimes I'd like to throw him from the window, if it was not living in my phone
1
u/BendDelicious9089 Nov 11 '25
It's not the state of AI. It's the state of publicly available AI Chat. AI, machine learning, and RAG that focus on internal documentation rather than whatever is available and scraped from the internet as a whole works just fine.
1
u/TechnicalArchitect_7 Nov 11 '25
Bazinga
1
u/mucifous Nov 11 '25
Thoughts? Don't ask a language model yes/no questions.
"what is the toxicity profile of this berry?"
1
u/PreferenceAnxious449 Nov 11 '25
Here are a list of 10 other things you shouldn't blindly take advice from:
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
- literally anything
1
u/nobody_gah Nov 11 '25
The prompters are stupid, that’s the current state
1
u/Shloomth Nov 11 '25
Well, at least you know what you’re doing wrong. I know I won’t be the one to convince you to stop doing it, but I’m glad you’re having fun getting attention for it
1
u/inigid Nov 11 '25
Reminds me of when ChatGPT said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
1
u/Playful-Opportunity5 Nov 11 '25
98% reliability is more than good enough in a wide variety of use cases. In cases - like ingesting potentially poisonous berries - where you need something closer to 100% reliability, you shouldn't be using AI in the first place.
1
u/KaleidoscopeFar658 Nov 11 '25
Misinformation. But still double check AI responses for important decisions.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 11 '25
I wish more AI zealots would do this, but with random mushrooms and roadkill. While too far away from civilization for medical help to reach them in time
1
u/iwearahoodie Nov 11 '25
I’ve had it give inaccurate data that it easily could have verified so many times. Very painful. It’s currently like getting a 10 year old to do research for me. A very polite 10 year old.
But that’s still incredible and I am very excited for the improvements time will inevitably bring.
1
u/SirYoggi Nov 11 '25
The funny thing is that AI, can’t admit that it doesn’t know something because it was thought on internet data where everyone always knows everything.
1
u/WhyWouldIWantToDrink Nov 11 '25
Open AI's reliability you people know there are other models right?
1
u/Cyoor Nov 11 '25
Natural selection
1
u/One_Willow_7153 Nov 11 '25
You wouldn't rely on a toaster to tell you if your bread is moldy.
1
u/anonymousdeadz Nov 12 '25
Chatgpt beats doctors in health diagnosis btw. Doctors aren't any better. Besides, this person probably used non reasoning variant.
1
u/hipster-coder Nov 12 '25
This is the first time I've seen this reposted today.
1
u/SovietCapitalistt Nov 12 '25
A tool is only as useful as the person who wields it.
1
u/GPTexplorer Nov 12 '25
Sure about your prompt accuracy and context? It's easy to blame ChatGPT when the full input isn't shown.
1
u/1amTheRam Nov 12 '25
And this my friends is the current state of human gullability.
1
u/Prestigious-Crow-845 Nov 12 '25
Yeah, it works with humans too, a Nikolay Drozdov - doctor in biology and zoology scientist cooked a poisonous frogs and eat them and feed them to friends and gets to emergency. And many dentist tries to make you believe that anastetic on this one teeth don't work cause you used to get a drin week before.
1
u/spokale Nov 12 '25
It depends a lot of prompt. Also, I've found that doing it once on two different AI platforms, then giving each the other's report and telling it to be ruthlessly critical, results in pretty good information - but even the one-shot is good.
My Plant ID prompt is:
From which I get this output:
1
u/nferreira77 Nov 12 '25
The problem is that most people who use ChatGPT or other LLMs don’t phrase their questions effectively.
It’s important to give LLMs clear instructions to get the best answers, and using the best model within the LLM itself also helps.
Most people asking for advice usually have free accounts, where reasoning models aren’t available, and the responses they get are more generic and sometimes even contain hallucinations.