[mtkd]

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)"

[ncallaway]

Dear 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

[sothatsit]

The problem is that SEO has made it hard to find trustworthy sites in the first place. The places I trust the most now for getting random information is Reddit and Wikipedia, which is absolutely ridiculous as they are terrible options.

But SEO slop machines have made it so hard to find the good websites without putting in more legwork than makes sense a lot of the time. Funnily enough, this makes AI look like a good option to cut through all the noise despite its hallucinations. That's obviously not acceptable when it comes to food safety concerns though.

[omnicognate]

If I do that search on Google right now, the top result is the National Pork Board (pork.org): ad-free, pop-up free, waffle-free and with the correct answer in large font at the top of the page. It's in F, but I always stick " C" at the end of temperature queries. In this case that makes the top result foodsafety.gov which is equally if not more authoritative, also ad-, waffle-, and popup- free and with with the answer immediately visible.

Meanwhile the AI overview routinely gives me completely wrong information. There's zero chance I'm going to trust it when a wrong answer can mean I give my family food poisoning.

I agree that there is a gigaton of crap out there, but the quality information sources are still there too. Google's job is to list those at the top and it actually has done so this time, although I'll acknowledge it doesn't always and I've taken to using Kagi in preference for this reason. A crappy AI preview that can't be relied on for anything isn't an acceptable substitute.

[pasc1878]

Kagi sort of gets this correct.

Kagi search gives the pork board first as well. But note that site fails mtkd's requirements giving temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and not Celsius. The second hit does give a correct temperature but has a cookie banner (which at least can be rejected with one click)

The optional Kagi assistant quotes the pork board, usda which also is only in Fahrenheit, and third a blog on site for a thermometer that quoted the UK Food Standard Authority and gives its temperature

However there is a problem the UK FSA does not agree with USDA on the temperature it puts it higher at 70 degrees C rather than 63

So if you get the USDA figure you are taking a risk. The Kagi Assistant gives both temperatures but it is not clear which one is correct although both figures are correctly linked to the actual sites.

[omnicognate]

I don't really see the problem with F and C. As I mentioned, I always stick " C" on the end of temperature queries. It's 2 characters and the results always have the centigrade temps, on both Kagi and Google.

[pasc1878]

The OPs main complaint was lack of C when that is the temperature scale used in their country

[jordanb]

Google could have cut down on this if they wanted. And in general they did until they fired Matt Cutts.

The reality is, every time someone's search is satisfied by an organic result is lost revenue for Google.

[taurath]

Which is the stupidest position ever if Google wants to exist long term.

Unfortunately there are no workable alternatives. DDG is somehow not better, though I use it to avoid trackers.

[Miraste]

It's a bit like the Easter Islanders cutting down all of their trees for wood. Where does Google management think they'll get search results if they kill the entire internet? Has anyone at Google thought that far ahead?

[9dev]

The internet they dream of is like a large mall. It consists of service providers selling you something, and Google directing you to them in exchange for some of the profit. The role of users in this model is that of a Piñata that everyone hits on to drop some money.

[what]

DDG is just serving you remixed bing and yandex results. There’s basically no alternative to GBY that do their own crawling and maintain their own index.

[Zardoz84]

qwant ?

[tonyedgecombe]

>The problem is that SEO has made it hard to find trustworthy sites in the first place.

We should remember that's partly Google's fault as well. They decided SEO sites were OK.

[FredPret]

Well, they decided which sites were OK, and then people SEO'd a bunch of crap into Google's idea of a good website.

I'm no fan of Google but it's not so simple to figure out what's relevant, good content on the scale of the internet, while confronted by an army of adversarial actors who can make money by working out what you value in a site.

[sothatsit]

It is a game of whack-a-mole in some sense, but Google also isn't swinging the mallet very fast.

[al_borland]

AI is being influenced by all that noise. It isn’t necessarily going to an authoritative source, it’s looking at Reddit and some SEO slop and using that to come up with the answer.

We need AI that’s trained exclusively on verified data and not random websites and internet comments.

[jval43]

I asked Gemini about some Ikea furniture dimensions and it gave seemingly correct answers, until it suddenly didn't make sense.

Turns out all the information it gave me came from old Reddit posts and lots of it was factually wrong. Gemini however still linked some official Ikea pages as the "sources".

It'll straight up lie to you and then hide where it actually got it's info from. Usually Reddit.

[sothatsit]

Creating better datasets would also help to improve the performance of the models, I would assume. Unfortunately, the costs to produce high-quality datasets of a sufficient size seem prohibitive today.

I'm hopeful this will be possible in the future though, maybe using a mix of 1) using existing LLMs to help humans filter the existing internet-scale datasets, and/or 2) finding some new breakthroughs to make model training more data efficient.

[heavyset_go]

It'll still hallucinate

[zahlman]

I've been finding that the proliferation of AI slop is at its worst on recipe/cooking/nutrition sites, so....

[ncallaway]

Please 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-i...

[AlecSchueler]

The 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]

I 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

[jkingsman]

Mmm, I see this cutting both ways -- generally, I'd agree; safety critical things should not be left to an AI. However, cooking temperatures are information that has a factual ground truth (or at least one that has been decided on), has VERY broad distribution on the internet, and generally is a single, short "kernel" of information that has become subject to slop-ifying and "here's an article when you're looking for about 30 characters of information or less" that is prolific on the web.

So, I'd agree -- safety info from an LLM is bad. But generally, the /flavor/ (heh) of information that such data comprises is REALLY good to get from LLMs (as opposed to nuanced opinions or subjective feedback).

[Velorivox]

I don’t know. I searched for how many chapters a popular manga has on Google and it gave me the wrong answer (by an order of magnitude). I only found out later and it did really piss me off because I made a trek to buy something that never existed. I should’ve known better.

I don’t think this is substantively different from cooking temperature, so I’m not trusting that either.

[jkingsman]

Eh I think it is. Arcane things -- sure, that might be a bit of a stretch. My general rule of thumb is that if I would expect ~10% of people to know the information factually, I can likely trust what an LLM tells me.

[Velorivox]

Really?

[0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png

[edanm]

Idk. Maybe that's true today (though even today I'm not sure) but how long before AI becomes better than just finding random text on a website?

After all, AI can theoretically ask follow-up questions that are relevant, can explain subtleties peculiar to a specific situation or request, can rephrase things in ways that are clearer for the end user.

Btw, "What temperature should a food be cooked to" is a classic example of something where lots of people and lots of sources repeat incorrect information, which is often ignored by people who actually cook. Famously, the temp that is often "recommended" is only the temp at which bacteria/whatever is killed instantly - but is often too hot to make the food taste good. What is normally recommended is to cook to a lower temperature but keep the food at that temperature for a bit longer, which has the same effect safety-wise but is much better.

[gspencley]

> Btw, "What temperature should a food be cooked to" is a classic example of something where lots of people and lots of sources repeat incorrect information, which is often ignored by people who actually cook. Famously, the temp that is often "recommended" is only the temp at which bacteria/whatever is killed instantly

I love this reply because you support your own point by repeating information that is technically incorrect.

To qualify myself, I have a background in food service. I've taken my "Food Safe" course in Ontario which is not legally mandated to work in food service, but offered by our government-run health units and many restaurants require a certificate to be employed in any food handling capacity (wait staff or food prep).

There is no such thing as "killed instantly." The temperature recommendations here in Canada, for example, typically require that the food be held at that temperature for a minimum of 15 seconds.

There is some truth in what you say. Using temperature to neutralize biological contaminants is a function of time and you can certainly accomplish the same result by holding food at lower temperature for a longer period of time. Whether this makes the food "taste better" or not depends on the food and what you're doing.

Sous Vide cooking is the most widely understood method of preparation where we hold foods at temperatures that are FAR lower than what is typically recommended, but held for much longer. I have cooked our family Thanksgiving Turkey breast at 60C sous vide, and while I personally like it... others don't like the texture. So your mileage may vary.

My point is that you're making a bunch of claims that have grains of truth to them, but aren't strictly true. I think your comment is an application of the dunning kruger effect. You know a little bit and because of that you think you know way more than you actually do. And I had to comment because it is beautifully ironic. Almost as if that paragraph in your comment is, itself, AI slop lol

[edanm]

> And I had to comment because it is beautifully ironic. Almost as if that paragraph in your comment is, itself, AI slop lol

Glad to be of service :) I think that's the first time a comment of mine has been accused of being AI slop. Sorry to say, every word - correct or incorrect - is mine.

> To qualify myself, I have a background in food service.

I'm just a person who watches cooking YouTube a bit, so right off the bat - I'll defer to your expertise on this.

I'm not sure we really disagree much though. My rough memory is that the guidelines specify temperature at which things are killed, I don't know if "instantly" or "15 seconds" really makes a difference in practice.

> Sous Vide cooking is the most widely understood method of preparation where we hold foods at temperatures that are FAR lower than what is typically recommended, but held for much longer.

Sous Vide is where I was first exposed to this concept, but I was more referring to things like chicken breasts, etc, which often aren't great at the minimal internal temperature, but I've seen YouTube "chefs" recommend cooking them to a slightly lower temperature, banking on the idea that they will effectively be at a slightly lower temperature, but long enough to still effectively kill bacteria. I've even seen criticism of the FDA charts for exactly this reason.

But to clarify, this is far outside any expertise I actually have.

> I think your comment is an application of the dunning kruger effect. You know a little bit and because of that you think you know way more than you actually do.

Absolutely possible.

[gspencley]

> , but I was more referring to things like chicken breasts, etc, which often aren't great at the minimal internal temperature, but I've seen YouTube "chefs" recommend cooking them to a slightly lower temperature, banking on the idea that they will effectively be at a slightly lower temperature, but long enough to still effectively kill bacteria.

Something that is very common is removing food from the heat source before the internal temperature hits your target because heat transfer itself takes time and so the food will continue to cook inside for a short period of time after being removed. This is because the outside, which you are blasting with heat that is far higher than your internal target, will partly transfer to the inside (the rest will dissipate into the air). So if you remove it from the heat exactly when you hit the internal temp, you can exceed the target temperature and your food will be "over cooked."

The problem with a tv chef recommending using a traditional cooking method, such as baking or frying, to TARGET a lower temperature, is that is very hard with those mediums to control for time. What you are doing with those mediums is you are blasting the outside of your food with a temperature that is far hotter than your internal target.

And so say, for example, you have your oven set to 180C and you are cooking chicken and your internal temperature target is, let's say 4 degrees cooler than the official recommendation. So the official recommendation is 74C held for a minimum of 15 seconds (that's Canada) and you are targeting 70C. With traditional cooking methods, you are playing a guessing game where you're blasting the outside of the food with very hot temperatures in order to bring the inside of the food up to some target.

I don't know off hand how much longer you would have to hold at 70C to get the same effect as 15 seconds at 74C ... but while you're waiting, your food is likely to exceed 74C anyway because of the high temperatures you're working with.

So that's why I talked about sous vide... becuase it's kind of the only way you can control for those variables. No oven can hold steady at temps as low as 70C (even at higher temps they fluctuate quite a bit. Anywhere from 5C - 20C depending on the oven).

And yeah - we definitely agree on most things. The minimum recommended temperatures are "play it safe" rather than "make food delicious." I do recognize that that was ultimately your point :)

It wasn't really my point to pick on you or argue with you, but to show that certain things you said are "partly true", which is a common complaint of AI (that and hallucinations). When we're dealing with things like food safety and the general public, it is usually better to offer general advise that is play it safe.

And with certain foods this matters more than others. Chickens get infected with salmonella while they are alive, for example, and so the bacteria can live throughout the meat. Whereas if you're cooking beef, you really only need to worry about surface contamination and so you can sear a steak for a few seconds and have it still be very "blue" in the middle and you're good.

[maerch]

Meanwhile, 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

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-...

Stern is a major magazine in Germany.

[bee_rider]

I 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.

[pjc50]

Doesn'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 , in the controversy over whether prion diseases in beef (BSE) were a problem.

[Daz1]

what a cringe comment

[badc0ffee]

Should "Taste pink", you say

[maerch]

It’s just the ChatGPT translation, and it’s a literal one. That said, I’ve never heard that phrase in German either.

[layer8]

The literal translation is wrong in that context, it should have been translated to “medium”.

[greazy]

I googled (Australia) "what temp is pork safe at?", top three hits:

1. https://www.foodsafety.asn.au/australians-clueless-about-saf... 2. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i... 3. https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/

All three were highly informative, well cited sources from reputable websites.

[wiseowise]

Only your second link provides good information in a convenient format (both F and C), first and third are useless.

[didibus]

Funny 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]

Do 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.

[pjc50]

You're getting lots of thermometer answers, so I'm going to give the opposite: I'm also on team "looks good to me" + "cooking time on packet" + "just cut it and look"

[lotyrin]

Many 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).

[bogdan]

What sort of world you must live in to find using a food thermometer "really weird"

[what]

It’s definitely weird. People cook food until it looks done, they don’t neurotically measure the temperature.

[avidiax]

For 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.

[PetahNZ]

Why wouldn't I? It takes a few seconds and my thermometer just sits on fridge.

[habinero]

I 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.

[tonyedgecombe]

I suspect your reference pool is the small one. Most people buy their burgers in a packet and hence follow the timing instructions on that packet.

[lacksconfidence]

Perhaps this varies by region? I don't know anyone that buys burgers in a packet. They buy ground beef and either make patties or balls (for smash burgers).

[toast0]

I don't do much of the shopping, but we get costco frozen burger patties for most of our home burgers. I don't think it costs more than the same weight of 'whole' ground beef, and it's convenient.

Those are thin enough I wouldn't think to stick a thermometer in them... it would be too hard to get it in the center and not out the other side, and it's pretty easy to get a sense of doneness from the outside (or cut into one and see). Steaks, depending on who's eating and doneness preferences, thermometer is nice. Roasts, almost certainly.

[what]

So your reference pool is you and mine is everyone I’ve ever seen cook a burger or steak or pork chop. Which one is smaller?

[habinero]

If you've never seen it and I see it all the time, I don't think it's me.

[8note]

thermometers were recommended by folks like alton brown and kenji to get really consistent results.

i havent heard it for burgers, but steaks for sure.

[padjo]

People are downvoting you because you’ve come onto a website populated by engineers and called someone weird for using objective measurements.

[carlosjobim]

> Anyways, luckily I did not get sick.

Why would you purchase meat that you suspect is diseased? Even if you cook it well-done, all the (now dead) bacteria and their byproducts are still inside. I don't understand why people do this to themselves? If I have any suspicion about some meat, I'll throw it away. I'm not going to cook it.

[brookst]

Safe 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]

I 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/

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]

Not 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]

The 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.

[owenversteeg]

It’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.

[krupan]

This 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.

[hansvm]

As 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]

A shorter cook time is safer? Do you sear it afterwards or something?

[hansvm]

The 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.

[mitthrowaway2]

Google'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]

And also why they incentivized all this human written training data that will no longer be incentivized

[squigz]

I 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...

Second result: https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/

[kriro]

On 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.

[wat10000]

It’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]

But 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]

The 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]

Yes USDA gives the wrong value for Canadians and Britons

[eviks]

> 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

[stereolambda]

Honestly 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]

> 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?

[sgentle]

"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...

[grey-area]

Why 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

[__turbobrew__]

This is the first search result for me: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food...

[refactor_master]

It 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]

The 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]

> 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.

[SwtCyber]

The issue is more when those same tools start replacing deeper content or misrepresenting nuanced info

[croes]

Don’t forget to add glue and rocks

[Rapzid]

AI overview also says 165f is the best temperature to cook chicken breast to. Which is and always has been bollocks.

[Rapzid]

And it's trained at least a few people how to ruin chicken breast :D

[Jean-Papoulos]

Incredible, 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]

id 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