6 ms·

Not really of course. Should make eatable dishes with correct nutritional value, if thats what you are offering.

by toshk 3y ago

Aachen 3y ago
From the article: > In a warning notice appended to the meal-planner, it warns that the recipes “are not reviewed by a human being” and that the company does not guarantee “that any recipe will be a complete or balanced meal, or suitable for consumption”. It is explicit in that it does not offer "dishes with correct nutritional value" Whether you should be allowed to label/market this as "meal planner", given that you can't label a milk replacement "milk replacement" in many countries, is up for debate, but the software itself is allegedly not dishonest (according to the article, I haven't tried it myself)
- fhars 3y ago
  So they are using a software that they know is not fit for purpose. That is at least gross negligence.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    Maybe the hammer analogy I used is not great because hitting yourself is obviously bad whereas any of the recipes might be toxic in a way that the user is not aware of, in which case you're right. But the complaint is that it suggests impossible dishes upon inputting ingredients that are obviously inedible and harmful substances, which sounds to me like it is functioning correctly even if this humorous function was unintentional Who would ask this LLM to make a recipe involving bleach and then actually proceed to make it? Such a person is already at risk of poisoning themselves, the software doesn't suggest it by itself so I don't see how it increases the risk of harm
    - piva00 3y ago
      But the purpose underlining a meal-planner AI is to create meals. If it's creating something that is not a meal it's not doing it's purpose, if the use-case is for meals then there should be guardrails against non-meals recipes, simply because it does not fit the purpose of the product. It's not a LLM product, it's not advertised as a general LLM that will generate text based on input of shopping items, it's specifically advertised as an AI meal planner and it's not fit for that purpose since it does not guard against non-meals. That's the issue, the user is supposed to be a layman, not someone that knows and understands LLMs and its limitations.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- toshk 3y ago
  It's offering to make a food-recipe, in there is the assumption that it's eatable. If you are asking to make a recipe of a bike & sand, it should simply say not possible. Im not saying you shouldn't launch, or call it a fun or experimental tool, but to just disclaimer your way out of things is too easy.
- yomlica8 3y ago
  This thing sounds useless even if you don't put bleach in as an ingredient then. Sounds like some one wanted to write "with AI" on their resume more than any great desire to build something useful.

Not really of course. Should make eatable dishes with correct nutritional value, if thats what you are offering.

by toshk 3y ago

Not really of course. Should make eatable dishes with correct nutritional value, if thats what you are offering.

From the article: > In a warning notice appended to the meal-planner, it warns that the recipes “are not reviewed by a human being” and that the company does not guarantee “that any recipe will be a complete or balanced meal, or suitable for consumption”. It is explicit in that it does not offer "dishes with correct nutritional value" Whether you should be allowed to label/market this as "meal planner", given that you can't label a milk replacement "milk replacement" in many countries, is up for debate, but the software itself is allegedly not dishonest (according to the article, I haven't tried it myself)

fhars 3y ago
So they are using a software that they know is not fit for purpose. That is at least gross negligence.
- Aachen 3y ago
  Maybe the hammer analogy I used is not great because hitting yourself is obviously bad whereas any of the recipes might be toxic in a way that the user is not aware of, in which case you're right. But the complaint is that it suggests impossible dishes upon inputting ingredients that are obviously inedible and harmful substances, which sounds to me like it is functioning correctly even if this humorous function was unintentional Who would ask this LLM to make a recipe involving bleach and then actually proceed to make it? Such a person is already at risk of poisoning themselves, the software doesn't suggest it by itself so I don't see how it increases the risk of harm
  - piva00 3y ago
    But the purpose underlining a meal-planner AI is to create meals. If it's creating something that is not a meal it's not doing it's purpose, if the use-case is for meals then there should be guardrails against non-meals recipes, simply because it does not fit the purpose of the product. It's not a LLM product, it's not advertised as a general LLM that will generate text based on input of shopping items, it's specifically advertised as an AI meal planner and it's not fit for that purpose since it does not guard against non-meals. That's the issue, the user is supposed to be a layman, not someone that knows and understands LLMs and its limitations.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
toshk 3y ago
It's offering to make a food-recipe, in there is the assumption that it's eatable. If you are asking to make a recipe of a bike & sand, it should simply say not possible. Im not saying you shouldn't launch, or call it a fun or experimental tool, but to just disclaimer your way out of things is too easy.
yomlica8 3y ago
This thing sounds useless even if you don't put bleach in as an ingredient then. Sounds like some one wanted to write "with AI" on their resume more than any great desire to build something useful.