https://gardenprofessors.com/s...

good article! Thanks Sally.

Just when you thought there was already a lot of crazy stuff about gardening on the 'net...

I may have said this on the site already-- for my library job, we had training to do with ChatGPT. I asked it to write a blog post about epsom salts in the garden or something like that. It created a lovely (piece of crap) article gathering from what's out there, so much of it false/incomplete info. I don't think you could have known it was AI written.

I always seek .edu sites

And it's going to get harder and harder to recognize that something is AI.

It isn't just gardening. The old saying about lies is alive and well and running around willy nilly. Say a lie once and everyone says, "That's a lie." Repeat it 1000 times and it becomes the accepted truth.

and it takes only a day for the 1000 tellings, thanks to modern tech

Good article, thank you!
I see AI generated images all over Facebook! From totally unrealistic looking crocheted/knitted pieces posted with a claim to have instructions, (no) to ridiculous flower/bird combos, idiotic animals ( actually disgusting) and so on. It is way over the top, and most people seemed to be charmed by those "amazing displays". Many times they create false expectations!

Like this pic in an ad for seeds?

Exactly! Tiffany, you hit the nail on the head!

I found that pic earlier today doing a search for mandevilla bella scarlet and then hitting images.

Aiyeeeeeee... so many people are going to be scammed a few bucks at a time, on nonsense seeds like that, even worse than already.

But those stupid phony photos have been around forever. The earliest ones were cut and pasted, then Photoshop opened endless possibilities. You don't need AI to alter colors (think blue coleus) and rake in gullible buyers. Plus those articles that are just copied from other (bad) articles have been around forever too. In that regard, AI might be making it easier, but it isn't breaking new ground. We've all known for a long time to be wary of what we read on the Internet on any subject.

My biggest concern is the "deep fakes" — seemingly real people appearing to say or do things they haven't... and viewers who are tricked into believing what they're seeing. Then what happens? We all start being skeptical of everything we see. Then crooks who really are caught on video doing or saying bad things claim they're been deep faked. I think things have the potential to get mighty complicated. The world is getting scarier every minute.

Getting scammed is the at the least concerning end of the deep fake scale. It could be used to start a civil or world war by creating footage of an attack that didn't happen which therefore rationalizes some retaliatory response. It could be used to frame people for crimes, especially inconvenient people who disagree in public with someone very powerful. It could be used to eliminate entire cities by creating footage of some kind of plague, something like the "Outbreak" movie, which requires bombing the city out of existence for the greater good. These scenarios are probably mild compared to what some evil genius could conjure.

Interesting article Sally, thanks for posting it.

I wonder whether AI will ever be able to generate truly new information based on analytic thinking, which requires combining ideas in new ways. Right now it appears it can only accumulate and combine existing knowledge in previously used connections or connotations?

That certainly could be powerful and useful in some ways. Finding a list of known pests as the author did was useful for him.

I thought standard Google might be able to do that but a search for "Hemerocallis pests and diseases list" produced only 7 and omitted some of the more serious ones.

The usual links were a hodgepodge that varied considerably in accuracy and completeness and even relevance.

AI would have a long way to go to sort out all that. And I don't know how it would judge the validity or accuracy. Some of the ".edu" sites had both problems, which is actually not uncommon in articles written by Extension personnel about Hemerocallis and many other subjects such as fertilizers, unfortunately. Ones written by "Master Gardeners" are often overconfident, in my experience. I will usually trust sources like these if they are writing about plants they have actually grown and their personal experience with them. If the source is repeating something that's secondhand it might be some of that "common knowledge" that is actually misinformed.

The web is a terrific resource for getting started on researching a subject. But it's necessary to dig deeper and broader into as much primary source material as can be found. Very often that means using a library! I hope we always support those. We need people with Sally's professional expertise.

Pat

Sadly I agree about .edu contributed by those not actual university staff.

I am seeing commercials touting AI for business use. Implying predictive capability. But who knows? I can't judge that. I've only experienced the language aspect, imitating text.

I am VERY afraid one day I will go outside and there will be a robot in my garden saying: Human , I am artificially intelligent, you are naturally stupid; You need food , I do not, so I will stomp on this crap because I do not need it.

Maybe they will be programmed by Asimov. Do not harm humans.

purpleinopp said: Like this pic in an ad for seeds?

Ooh! I want those!

Thea, IKR! So do I! LOL!