Platforms are finally recognizing that people don’t want to consume AI slop. A growing number of sites and apps now have tools and policies to flag, label, and ban AI-generated content.
I think you’re misunderstanding them. They specifically mentioned SEO recipe sites, which are websites dedicated to being ranked highest on search engines, which typically means they don’t correlate with recipe quality, but with clickability (or whatever the algorithms like today). There’s a lot of them, so calling them spam isn’t necessarily wrong. Lots of people search for recipes, so it’s bound to attract it.
They just seem to be cautioning that the LLM might pull from bogus sources since there’s not really a straightforward benchmark for a good recipe that it might reference, and that you have to remember you’re using a tool. Your own intelligence is the real test. Which isn’t bad advice when dealing with AI output, but I think you already got that. I would say, don’t be baited into the idea that everyone is some hardcore AI hater because they are skeptical, there are certainly some, but assuming it alienates the many people that have surprisingly nuanced takes.
Yeah good points. I dont know where it gets its raw data but it’s capable of modifying and thinking about ingredients, so I think its behavior is superior to just recepie sites.
LLMs are text models. They’re like weather models; they live in the context of the input, it’s literally their entire “world view.” The inputs are the most important part of the quality of the answer.
You need to be able to audit the inputs. If ChatGPT doesn’t even show them, that is a tremendous issue.
And I don’t mean to criticize recipes it’s given that have turned out well, but that’s, literally, mathematically, objectively, a roll of the dice if it’s not grounded in real recipes.
As an alternative, I would highly recommend:
Asking the LLM service to find the most accredited cookbooks in the niche you want.
Get them locally, copy and paste the categories you want into chat.
Ask it to pick or (or modify/synthesize) a good recipe from that.
This is what text models were designed to do before OpenAI commercialized them.
See, this is where I think you’re wrong. There’s no thinking going on. It’s a probability analysis based on word adjacency in a text dataset, with a little bit of $RND thrown in. If you ask the same question multiple times, you’ll get different answers because of the presence of the random seed. If you ask it why chocolate coated shrimp is a bad idea, it’s not going to answer based on culinary training saying that those two flavour profiles don’t belong together, it’s going to say no because some other crazy person actually tried it and that data made it into the dataset. (And yes, someone did, I checked…)
This is why people who don’t know how computing works should be banned from touching anything LLM adjacent. The amount of misinformation makes me pull my hair out. Even them calling it “AI” is idiotic and I correct anyone using the term. It’s a word generator. Or if you will, a bullshit generator built on stolen knowledge then sold back to you as slop.
I think you’re misunderstanding them. They specifically mentioned SEO recipe sites, which are websites dedicated to being ranked highest on search engines, which typically means they don’t correlate with recipe quality, but with clickability (or whatever the algorithms like today). There’s a lot of them, so calling them spam isn’t necessarily wrong. Lots of people search for recipes, so it’s bound to attract it.
They just seem to be cautioning that the LLM might pull from bogus sources since there’s not really a straightforward benchmark for a good recipe that it might reference, and that you have to remember you’re using a tool. Your own intelligence is the real test. Which isn’t bad advice when dealing with AI output, but I think you already got that. I would say, don’t be baited into the idea that everyone is some hardcore AI hater because they are skeptical, there are certainly some, but assuming it alienates the many people that have surprisingly nuanced takes.
Yeah good points. I dont know where it gets its raw data but it’s capable of modifying and thinking about ingredients, so I think its behavior is superior to just recepie sites.
That’s not how it works.
LLMs are text models. They’re like weather models; they live in the context of the input, it’s literally their entire “world view.” The inputs are the most important part of the quality of the answer.
You need to be able to audit the inputs. If ChatGPT doesn’t even show them, that is a tremendous issue.
And I don’t mean to criticize recipes it’s given that have turned out well, but that’s, literally, mathematically, objectively, a roll of the dice if it’s not grounded in real recipes.
As an alternative, I would highly recommend:
Asking the LLM service to find the most accredited cookbooks in the niche you want.
Get them locally, copy and paste the categories you want into chat.
Ask it to pick or (or modify/synthesize) a good recipe from that.
This is what text models were designed to do before OpenAI commercialized them.
See, this is where I think you’re wrong. There’s no thinking going on. It’s a probability analysis based on word adjacency in a text dataset, with a little bit of $RND thrown in. If you ask the same question multiple times, you’ll get different answers because of the presence of the random seed. If you ask it why chocolate coated shrimp is a bad idea, it’s not going to answer based on culinary training saying that those two flavour profiles don’t belong together, it’s going to say no because some other crazy person actually tried it and that data made it into the dataset. (And yes, someone did, I checked…)
This is why people who don’t know how computing works should be banned from touching anything LLM adjacent. The amount of misinformation makes me pull my hair out. Even them calling it “AI” is idiotic and I correct anyone using the term. It’s a word generator. Or if you will, a bullshit generator built on stolen knowledge then sold back to you as slop.