you have sort of a weird take on this? like here are our premises, what we know with certainty:
all mycology apps tested to date are known to be poor (highest accuracy less than 50%)
all LLMs are known to be fairly poor
and the author is deriving the conclusion:
mycology apps that happen to be LLM-based have a high likelihood of being poor, so be careful
like yes, it’s not an empirical conclusion because someone still needs to do the work of testing the LLM mycology apps. i’d call it maybe an evidence based hypothesis that the average consumer should heed rather than find out the hard way and get poisoned.
but i think you condeming it as “biased,” “misinformation” or “misleading” is unnecessarily harsh. to me this looks like basic pattern recognition and forming hypotheses based on real evidence.
maybe i am missing a hole in the logic here and if so let me know.