8 ms·
Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes 6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers
by mtkd 1y ago
Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes
6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers and usually all in F not C ... despite Google knowing location ... I used it as an example at the time of 'how hard can this be?'
First sentance of Google AI response right now: "Pork is safe to eat when cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F (63°C)"
- brookst 1y agoSafe Temperatures for Pork People have been eating pork for over 40,000 years. There’s speculation about whether pork or beef was first a part of the human diet. (5000 words later) The USDA recommends cooking pork to at least 145 degrees.
- BoorishBears 1y agoI searched it. First result under the overview is the National Pork Board, shows the answer above the fold, and includes visual references: https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/ https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/ Most of the time if there isn't a straightforward primary source in the top results, Google's AI overview won't get it right either. Given the enormous scale and latency constraints they're dealing with, they're not using SOTA models, and they're probably not feeding the model 5000 words worth of context from every result on the page.
- ImaCake 1y agoNot only that, it includes a link to the USDA reference so you can verify it yourself. I have switched back to google because of how useful I find the RAG overviews.
- wat10000 1y agoThe link is the only useful part, since you can’t trust the summary. Maybe they could just show the links that match your query and skip the overview. Sounds like a billion-dollar startup idea, wonder why nobody’s done it.
- krupan 1y agoThis should be the top comment! Thank you for posting it because I'm starting to worry that I'm the only one who realizes how ridiculous this all is.
- owenversteeg 1y agoIt’s a pretty good billion dollar idea, I think you’ll do well. In fact I bet you’ll make money hand over fist, for years. You could hire all the best engineers and crush the competition. At that point you control the algorithm that everyone bases their websites on, so if you were to accidentally deploy a series of changes that incentivized low quality contentless websites… it wouldn’t matter at all; not your problem. Now that the quality of results is poor, but people still need their queries answered, why don’t you provide them the answers yourself? You could keep all the precious ad revenue that you previously lost when people clicked on those pesky search results.
- wat10000 1y agoIt’s only useful if you can trust it, and you very much cannot. I know you can’t necessarily trust anything online, but when the first hit is from the National Pork Board, I’m confident the answer is good.
- pasc1878 1y agoBut for the OP it is not as it does not give a temperature in their preferred units and probably USDA gives the wrong temperature in their locality.
- wat10000 1y agoThe only advantage is the automatic unit conversion, and that introduces a second point where the summary can get it wrong. If the source gives an incorrect answer then the AI summary is just going to repeat it, if you’re lucky.
- pasc1878 1y agoYes USDA gives the wrong value for Canadians and Britons
- sgentle 1y ago"full moon time NY" > The next full moon in New York will be on August 9th, 2025, at 3:55 a.m. "full moon time LA" > The next full moon in Los Angeles will be on August 9, 2025, at 3:55 AM PDT. I mean, it certainly gives an immediate answer...
- ncallaway 1y agoDear lord please don’t use an AI overview answer for food safety. If you made a bet with your friend and are using the AI overview to settle it, fine. But please please click on an actual result from a trusted source if you’re deciding what temperature to cook meat to
- zahlman 1y agoI've been finding that the proliferation of AI slop is at its worst on recipe/cooking/nutrition sites, so....
- ncallaway 1y agoPlease find a trusted source of information for food safety information. It's genuinely harder than it's ever been to find good information on the internet, but when you're dealing with food safety information, it's really worth taking the extra minute to find a definitive source. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-internal-temperatures https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i...
- AlecSchueler 1y agoThe site you linked to is published by the American government who are actively anti-science, removing access to research and cutting funding for ideological reasons, denying widely accepted climate and medical facts etc. I wouldn't trust that source at all.
- ncallaway 1y agoI mean, I'm absolutely not going to take the current FDA's guidance on drinking raw milk. You need to evaluate what you're willing to trust for yourself. I printed out the pre-January 2025 FDA vaccine schedule, so I could compare it against any updated recommendations. All that said, the cooking temperatures aren't something that they've changed, and I would still rely on the US government published number over a AI generated value
- 1y ago
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoGoogle's search rankings are also the thing driving those ridiculous articles to the top, which is the only reason so many of them get written...
- ljlolel 1y agoAnd also why they incentivized all this human written training data that will no longer be incentivized
- hansvm 1y agoAs of a couple weeks ago it had a variety of unsafe food recommendations regarding sous vide, e.g. suggesting 129F for 4+ hours for venison backstrap. That works great some of the time but has a very real risk of bacterial infiltration (133F being similar in texture and much safer, or 2hr being a safer cook time if you want to stick to 129F). Trust it if you want I guess. Be cautious though.
- zahlman 1y agoA shorter cook time is safer? Do you sear it afterwards or something?
- hansvm 1y agoThe problem is that 129F is a borderline safe temperature at any length of time. 3-4hrs is closer to what you want to kill _all_ the salmonella and e coli, but 2hrs kills enough that it's very likely to be safe, and 129F isn't a sufficient temperature for any length of time to kill clostridium perfringens and other similar bacteria, resulting in spoilage occasionally with a greatly increased likelihood the longer you cook it. Separately, yes, you do normally sear it afterwards. It's for flavor/appearence/texture reasons though, and a number of people recommend mildly chilling it (say, for 15min or so) first so that you don't overcook any of the interior from the sear. The pan should be much hotter than a lot of people expect.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- squigz 1y agoI wonder how people have such awful experiences with (traditional) Google when I don't and really never have. First result: https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06/2924.pdf https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06... Second result: https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/ https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoThis is the first search result for me: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food-safety-tips/safe-internal-cooking-temperatures.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food...
- refactor_master 1y agoIt doesn't take long to find SEO slop trying to sell you something: When our grandmothers and grandfathers were growing up, there was a real threat to their health that we don’t face anymore. No, I’m not talking about the lack of antibiotics, nor the scarcity of nutritious food. It was trichinosis, a parasitic disease that used to be caught from undercooked pork. The legitimate worry of trichinosis led their mothers to cook their pork until it was very well done. They learned to cook it that way and passed that cooking knowledge down to their offspring, and so on down to us. The result? We’ve all eaten a lot of too-dry, overcooked pork. But hark! The danger is, for the most part, past, and we can all enjoy our pork as the succulent meat it was always intended to be. With proper temperature control, we can have better pork than our ancestors ever dreamed of. Here, we’ll look at a more nuanced way of thinking about pork temperatures than you’ve likely encountered before." Sorry, what temperature was it again? Luckily there's the National Pork Board which has bought its way to the top, just below the AI overview. So this time around I won't die from undercooked pork at least.
- pasc1878 1y agoThe link quoted does not have that text so what are you on about? However that site gives the temperature for Pork as 71C which is not what USDA says but is correct. So using the USDA recommendation does have a risk according to at least Canada and UK
- zahlman 1y ago> but is correct That's the thing, though — there isn't an objective standard here; it's mediated both by the local context (how good are the local trich inspections, etc.) and risk tolerance vs. cultural expectations for how the meat should taste. The Canadian and US governments currently disagree; so it goes. Everything "has a risk". Taste and smell are not reliable indicators of bacterial contamination, and properly cooking meat won't eliminate dangerous toxins left behind by prior contamination if the meat was improperly stored before cooking.
- eviks 1y ago> 6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at? No it wasn't, most of the first page results have the temperature right there in the summary, many of them with both F and C, and unlike the AI response, there is much lower chance of hallucinated results. So you've gained nothing PS Trying the same search with -ai gets you the full table with temperatures, unlike with the AI summary where you have to click to get more details, so the new AI summary is strictly worse
- didibus 1y agoFunny story, I used that to know the cooked temperature of burgers, it said medium-rare was 130. I proceeded to eating it and all, but then like half way through, I noticed the middle of this burger is really red looking, doesn't seem normal, and suddenly I remembered, wait, ground beef is always supposed to be 160, 130 medium-rare is for steak. I then chatted that back to it, and it was like, oh ya, I made a mistake, you're right, sorry. Anyways, luckily I did not get sick. Moral of the story, don't get mentally lazy and use AI to save you the brain it takes for simple answers.
- what 1y agoDo you actually put a thermometer in your burgers/steaks/meat when you’re cooking? That seems really weird. Why are people downvoting this? I’ve literally never seen anyone use a thermometer to cook a burger or steak or pork chop. A whole roasted turkey, sure.
- lotyrin 1y agoMany people wing dishes that they've prepared 100s of times. Others rarely make the same recipe twice. Neither are correct or incorrect, but the latter is very much going to measure everything they're doing carefully (or fail often).
- avidiax 1y agoFor something safety critical like a burger, yes. For whole meats, it's usually safe to be rare and you can tell that by feel, though a thermometer is still useful if you aren't a skilled cook or you are cooking to a doneness you aren't familiar with.
- 8note 1y agothermometers were recommended by folks like alton brown and kenji to get really consistent results. i havent heard it for burgers, but steaks for sure.
- habinero 1y agoI think your reference pool is just small. I absolutely use it for meat and especially for ground meat, which has a much higher chance of contamination.
- maerch 1y agoMeanwhile, in Germany, you can get raw pork with raw onions on a bread roll at just about every other bakery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett When I searched for the safe temperature for pork (in German), I found this as the first link (Kagi search engine) > Ideally, pork should taste pink, with a core temperature between 58 and 59 degrees Celsius. You can determine the exact temperature using a meat thermometer. Is that not a health concern? Not anymore, as nutrition expert Dagmar von Cramm confirms: > “Trichinae inspection in Germany is so strict — even for wild boars — that there is no longer any danger.” https://www.stern.de/genuss/essen/warum-sie-schweinefleisch-nicht-mehr-ganz-durchbraten-muessen-7883970.html https://www.stern.de/genuss/essen/warum-sie-schweinefleisch-... Stern is a major magazine in Germany.
- bee_rider 1y agoI was just thinking that EU sources might be a good place to look for this sort of thing, given that we never really know what basic public health facts will be deemed political in the US on any given day. But, this reveals a bit of a problem—of course, you guys have food safety standards, so advice they is safe over there might not be applicable in the US.
- Daz1 1y agowhat a cringe comment
- pjc50 1y agoDoesn't even have to be "better", just "different". The classic one is whether you should refrigerate eggs, which has diametrically opposite answers. But anything that actually matters could be politicized at any time. I remember the John Gummer Burger Incident: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm , in the controversy over whether prion diseases in beef (BSE) were a problem.
- badc0ffee 1y agoShould "Taste pink", you say
- Rapzid 1y agoAI overview also says 165f is the best temperature to cook chicken breast to. Which is and always has been bollocks.
- Rapzid 1y agoAnd it's trained at least a few people how to ruin chicken breast :D
- greazy 1y agoI googled (Australia) "what temp is pork safe at?", top three hits: 1. https://www.foodsafety.asn.au/australians-clueless-about-safe-cooking-temperatures-10-november-2017/ https://www.foodsafety.asn.au/australians-clueless-about-saf... 2. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-internal-temperatures https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i... 3. https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/ https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/ All three were highly informative, well cited sources from reputable websites.
- wiseowise 1y agoOnly your second link provides good information in a convenient format (both F and C), first and third are useless.
- croes 1y agoDon’t forget to add glue and rocks
- Jean-Papoulos 1y agoIncredible, you are the problem. Didn't think I'd see such an idiotic answer on HN, please for the love of god do not use AI to know what is safe to eat.
- 8note 1y agoid consider that google thinks its good enough for people to base their food safety off of it, and they deserve to get sued for whatever theyre worth for providing said recommendations when somebody trusts them and gets sick
- grey-area 1y agoWhy do you think that answer is correct? I mean maybe it is, or maybe it’s by the same user who recommended eating rocks (which ‘AI’ also recommended). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- stereolambda 1y agoHonestly the SEO talk sounds like reflexive coping in this discourse. I get that WWW has cheapened quality, but we now have the tech that could defeat most of the SEO and other trash tactics on the search engine side. Text analysis as a task is cracked open. Google and such could detect dark patterns with LLMs, or even just deep learning. This would probably be more reliable than answering factual queries. The problem is there is no money and fame in using it that way, or at least so people think in the current moment. But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30. Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.
- zahlman 1y ago> But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30. We could. But it will absolutely not happen unless and until it can be more profitable than Google's current model. What's your plan? > Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here. Well, yes. That's the problem. Why rely on the same random liars as taste-makers?
- SwtCyber 1y agoThe issue is more when those same tools start replacing deeper content or misrepresenting nuanced info
- kriro 1y agoOn Google: """what temp in C is pork safe at?""" AI: 63C First result: Five year old reddit thread (F only discussion, USDA mentioned). Second result: ThermoWorks blog (with 63C). Third result: FoodSafety.gov (with 63C) Forth result: USDA (with 63C) Seems reasonable enough to scan 3-4 results to get some government source.