I'm amazed at how well AI works on plants. At the same time, I'm exasperated on how bad it is at IDing cicadas. I just looked at an observation that was a super obvious Resh cicada, but AI's first choice was a Swamp cicada which is totally obviously wrong. Resh was listed something like 7th choice. Resh has 435 research grade observations. Swamp cicada has 293. I'm hoping AI will eventually get better.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/PrjmKO9YvZ0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
A big problem is that relative newcomers to iNat, when they are offered the AI suggestions, they assume that all the competence of the platform and all its users is behind these suggestions! Relatively new users have no idea that the suggestions are coming from an AI, and they also have no idea what the limitations are of an AI in training.I wish there was some way of getting this across to people.
"We're not confident enough to make a recommendation, but here are our top 10 suggestions."
I'd possibly change it to something like:
"The AI (or whatever is the correct term for it) is not confident enough to make a suggestion. Here are ten possibilities."
Switching out 'we' makes it clear that it's not a person or authority who is making the recommendations, but a computer, while making it clear that it doesn't have a solid answer. The second change makes it less likely that someone will assume that the first option is always the correct one.
I think we should get across that the suggestions are fallible. I don't know if simply changing some words will help any, but the posts here made me wonder about this.
--
Maybe adding a certainty factor based on the number of records used to make the ID would be helpful? For instance, if the AI identifies a common plant in California, you could say "We are 80% confident this is ...", or "10,453 observations suggest that this is ..."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to inatu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/inaturalist.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
If friction is raised, that's okay, because it makes us all sit back, critically think, debate, and do more research. Even if we turn out to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong and learn from my mistakes than go on making the same mistake. :) If someone does get angry, they're not approaching the ID in good faith, which is a lesson in itself.
Also, a lot of us layman sometimes get a bit too helpful in that regard, as we'll sometimes go by experience and new-found knowledge. Roads paved with good intentions and all that. :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "iNaturalist" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/inaturalist/PrjmKO9YvZ0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to inaturalist...@googlegroups.com.