5 ms·

Not quite. If you're using a capable LLM (e.g. GPT-4), you can easily fix this with a prompt, e.g. "remove non-edible items from the ingredients". It's perfect

Not quite. If you're using a capable LLM (e.g. GPT-4), you can easily fix this with a prompt, e.g. "remove non-edible items from the ingredients". It's perfectly capable of returning an error when the input is garbage, but it needs a context for it. Without a context it might interpret it as a creative writing task.

dylan604 3y ago
Doesn’t this assume that an LLM knows what you mean by non-edible? So it leaves out the plastic and cardboard and not the toxic substances. Or maybe going the other way, it leaves out processed food
- consp 3y ago
  Cardboard is edible. If it is healthy is another question altogether.
  - hypertele-Xii 3y ago
    Michel Lotito is in the Guinness World Records for having eaten 18 bicycles, 15 supermarket trolleys, seven TV sets, six chandeliers, two beds, a pair of skis, a Cessna light aircraft and a computer.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    That’s my point. Chlorine is edible too. So is arsenic, bug spray, and a plethora of other toxic substances. So your pedantic response was already covered.
    - digging 3y ago
      Well, no. Chlorine is unsafe. Cardboard is just not nutritious. They're different categories.
      - smileysteve 3y ago
        Cardboard provides insoluble fiber (and binding agents); How does one differentiate between cardboard ground in a smoothie and metamucil/glucomannan? Carboard's nutritional profile might even be better than many processed carbs (pasta, rice) when considering the fiber. Or that cellulose is a top ingredient to keep things like powdered parmesan cheese dry?
    - killerstorm 3y ago
      I'm afraid GPT-4 has more common sense than a typical HN commenter: > How do you define edible in context of making recipes? > In the context of making recipes, "edible" typically refers to food items that are safe to consume without causing harm or discomfort. However, the definition can be more nuanced based on culinary, cultural, nutritional, and individual considerations. Here's a breakdown: > Safety: The most basic definition of edible is that something can be eaten without causing immediate harm or long-term health risks. For instance, certain mushrooms are toxic and not edible, while others are safe and delicious. > Digestibility: Even if a food isn't toxic, it might be hard for humans to digest. Some foods can be edible when cooked but not when raw, like certain beans which contain harmful compounds when uncooked. ...
      - dylan604 3y ago
        No, time and time again, ChatGPT has proven that it doesn't have more common sense than an HN commenter. So yes, I know what edible means, but why would we assume ChatGPT does? Your snark just shows your unwillingness to be open about the limits of LLMs. Maybe you're a shill in sheeps clothing, but discounting conversations because they ask questions you might not like is just wasting time
        killerstorm 3y ago
        Well, you wrote: "Chlorine is edible too. So is arsenic, bug spray...". So we have direct evidence that GPT-4 has more common sense than you.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Doesn’t this assume that an LLM knows what you mean by non-edible Seems like a reasonable thing to assume it can do. Here's 3.5: > copy only the edible items from this list: water, parsley, lead, mayonnaise, bleach, potatoes, cardboard, a map of Egypt, the Stone of Scone, a scone, cheese, wine, a tin of tuna with a best-before date of 3 April 1993, pasta, tomatoes. > Sure, here are the edible items from your list: parsley, mayonnaise, potatoes, cheese, wine, pasta, tomatoes. It may have cut out too much, but that's fine for the use case.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    moreover, with the right prompt, it's able to say that chlorine and ammonia are both toxic to humans and does not advise the user to make food with those items.
- killerstorm 3y ago
  GPT-4 have seen lots and lots of recipes. You can ask it to exclude ingredients which are not normally used in recipes. LLMs of this size should be quite good at 'common sense' classification, and you can definitely ask it to err on the side of caution.

dylan604 3y ago

Doesn’t this assume that an LLM knows what you mean by non-edible? So it leaves out the plastic and cardboard and not the toxic substances. Or maybe going the other way, it leaves out processed food

consp 3y ago
Cardboard is edible. If it is healthy is another question altogether.
- hypertele-Xii 3y ago
  Michel Lotito is in the Guinness World Records for having eaten 18 bicycles, 15 supermarket trolleys, seven TV sets, six chandeliers, two beds, a pair of skis, a Cessna light aircraft and a computer.
- dylan604 3y ago
  That’s my point. Chlorine is edible too. So is arsenic, bug spray, and a plethora of other toxic substances. So your pedantic response was already covered.
  - digging 3y ago
    Well, no. Chlorine is unsafe. Cardboard is just not nutritious. They're different categories.
    - smileysteve 3y ago
      Cardboard provides insoluble fiber (and binding agents); How does one differentiate between cardboard ground in a smoothie and metamucil/glucomannan? Carboard's nutritional profile might even be better than many processed carbs (pasta, rice) when considering the fiber. Or that cellulose is a top ingredient to keep things like powdered parmesan cheese dry?
  - killerstorm 3y ago
    I'm afraid GPT-4 has more common sense than a typical HN commenter: > How do you define edible in context of making recipes? > In the context of making recipes, "edible" typically refers to food items that are safe to consume without causing harm or discomfort. However, the definition can be more nuanced based on culinary, cultural, nutritional, and individual considerations. Here's a breakdown: > Safety: The most basic definition of edible is that something can be eaten without causing immediate harm or long-term health risks. For instance, certain mushrooms are toxic and not edible, while others are safe and delicious. > Digestibility: Even if a food isn't toxic, it might be hard for humans to digest. Some foods can be edible when cooked but not when raw, like certain beans which contain harmful compounds when uncooked. ...
    - dylan604 3y ago
      No, time and time again, ChatGPT has proven that it doesn't have more common sense than an HN commenter. So yes, I know what edible means, but why would we assume ChatGPT does? Your snark just shows your unwillingness to be open about the limits of LLMs. Maybe you're a shill in sheeps clothing, but discounting conversations because they ask questions you might not like is just wasting time
      - killerstorm 3y ago
        Well, you wrote: "Chlorine is edible too. So is arsenic, bug spray...". So we have direct evidence that GPT-4 has more common sense than you.
ben_w 3y ago
> Doesn’t this assume that an LLM knows what you mean by non-edible Seems like a reasonable thing to assume it can do. Here's 3.5: > copy only the edible items from this list: water, parsley, lead, mayonnaise, bleach, potatoes, cardboard, a map of Egypt, the Stone of Scone, a scone, cheese, wine, a tin of tuna with a best-before date of 3 April 1993, pasta, tomatoes. > Sure, here are the edible items from your list: parsley, mayonnaise, potatoes, cheese, wine, pasta, tomatoes. It may have cut out too much, but that's fine for the use case.
- fragmede 3y ago
  moreover, with the right prompt, it's able to say that chlorine and ammonia are both toxic to humans and does not advise the user to make food with those items.
killerstorm 3y ago
GPT-4 have seen lots and lots of recipes. You can ask it to exclude ingredients which are not normally used in recipes. LLMs of this size should be quite good at 'common sense' classification, and you can definitely ask it to err on the side of caution.