Post #1620604
2026-04-22 15:32 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-04-23 09:01
it can indeed be useful as long as a human verifies it, which is why we should be leaving these apps to rot and only use iNaturalist which lets you post the photos to get a second opinion (and at the same time contribute to science). All these other plant ID apps are the equivalent of talking tom, they're just entertainment.
-
@frongt@lemmy.zip 2026-04-22 19:45
Posting without verifying deserves downvotes. It's useless at best, and harmful at worst when it's wrong. Thus, downvotes. Also, since it *is* verifiably wrong, extra downvotes.
-
@riskable@programming.dev 2026-04-22 19:54
The anti-AI sentiment on Lemmy is quite extreme. To these people, all AI is bad. Even when it's useful. Even when it's saving lives. Even if AI was the world's only hope of solving global warming, they'd still unplug it without skipping a beat. Because none of that matters to them. It's a religion. A beleif that's not founded in reason. They *hate* it. The very concept of it. If all AI was powered via solar panels in a desert with no water cooling necessary, they'd still hate it. If all AI was perfect at what it did and never made mistakes they'd still hate it. If all AI was open source and free, running locally on everyone's PCs and phones, they'd still hate it. I don't get it. There's literally no place for intelligent machines in their world.