OK, ... so you rather justify a recipe app accepting chemicals as inputs to blame a news site for their reporting than to identify the problem?
Edit: removed a part about The Guardian.
Edit: removed a part about The Guardian.
As for allowing to input chemicals: garbage in, garbage out. We accept that from tools (and some countries from guns) but not from software. Maybe that's how it should be, but I find it an interesting discrepancy. In general, as a hacker, I'm happy if a tool lets me use it for unintended purposes (such as humor in this case)
The subtext here is journalists who are dead scared of a tool they know will replace them. So they have to denigrate it.
Even trivial things like input fields on web forms have a type attribute that lets developers specify which type of content is expected and valid. (If you're not familiar with that, have a look here: [0]).
For things that might endanger the health of customers, we can expect better.
[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/in...
Just sounding this out but I think the expectation you are responding to is an expectation of an appropriate level of safety, which is more context dependent. For example, do any of the generated recipes actually pose a danger, in that they will participate in harming a human? My hunch is no, this would not present the same kind of danger the 'tide pod challenge' did and would never lead to unusual adverse outcomes (anyone can find out about an allergy from a new ingredient in a recipe for example).
Just exploring the topic here though. I think the perspective that a 'meal planner' should never produce plainly hazardous meal plans is perfectly rational.
anything less would be like clippy telling me Microsoft Word refuses to write my planetary doomsday ransom notes because Microsoft Word is 'meant to write nice things', or my car refusing to exceed the speed limit because it is 'meant to drive legally'
maybe I'm just an alien who's capable of drinking bleach, the app doesn't know and it shouldn't have opinions: it should just do what I tell it to do, because it's a "put whatever ingredients you want together" app, not a "this is definitely safe and healthy" app
There's no point in apologizing for the LLM. Of course it's doing what it's asked to do. That's not the gripe, nor points toward any kind of solution, though.
And in the context of this conversation which was about clickbait on the guardian I felt it was a contextually valid observation. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.
So yeah, don't broadcast your stuff to the mainstream unless it's foolproof. But also, let people be, who are satisfied with dealing with the rough-edges stuff.
This is true in many contexts. Think about enthusiasts of weird drugs or other niche communities like sword swallowers. There's no principle of "you are only allowed to do things that are also safe when ignorantly attempted by a random person".