What's new

I have found using google.com in AI mode to be an incredible resource!

JCinPA

Fish Crazy
Supporting Member ⭐
Joined
Apr 23, 2026
Messages
276
Reaction score
166
Points
43
Location
Philadelphia
I'm on a steep learning curve and I've been chatting with the Google.com AI on various topics from fishless cycling, setting up tanks, fish compatibility, feeding, lighting, equipment questions.

I am amazed at how detailed the discussions are and how it prompts for follow on questions. It is light years better than the Duckduckgo AI. I know some folks feel AI is the end of civilization as we know it, but it is just an incredibly powerful information repository, and it has been superb in my interactions with it. Try it and just ask questions like you would in a post here in normal English. I think you'll be surprised at how good it is.

I know AI is not perfect, and can give less than perfect responses, but it's likely no worse than asking questions on a forum and getting a few incorrect responses among many good ones. I've been totally blown away by its effectiveness.
 
Stay tuned. AI is in its infancy. In a few years I predict it will be a very valuable tool.
 
I suspect it will become an excellent tool in the scientific world, but less friendly in the realms of power and politics. As always, its usefulness depends on who it belongs to and what they're gaining from it. It's owned, and it's steered. Where that doesn't matter a lot, it'll be fine.

It's not going to make people any more mentally lazy than they are now. Using it to discuss fish isn't going to put people out of work.
 
I do not trust any AI to give a good resonse for fish things when it actuially involves the science. It often hallucintates answers. I turn off AI wherever I can. Where I find the Gpoogle AI usedful is when I already know the snaswer but if I know the AI got it right, it becomes easier to cut and paste than to create the answer.

I have yet to believe that AI is actually intelligenc, it is just a faster searcher for answer but many have no idea that they are incorrect. Chrck yhe siurces Google uses to come up with it's I answers on fish things. I find a lot of the time the answers it offers comes from -places on the net I would not trust.

There is a reason I am not on any social media at all is that most of what is on it is BS. It is more like gossip than anything intelligent. So, you trust what you want to and i will distrust what I want. And we can both be happy.

I just went to Google and asked it "how do I cycle a fresh water aquarium." the answer were half right and half either wrong or incomplete.

Here are two examples

Fish Food Method: Alternatively, crush and drop a pinch of fish food into the tank. As it decays, it will naturally release ammonia.
The source for this junk is Reddit. Now here is what the PhD microbiologist Dr. Timothy Hovanec says about this (Bold added by me):

Using shrimp or fish food​


One of the more popular fishless cycling methods is to buy a few dead shrimp at the grocery store, cut them up into chunks and add them to the aquarium. The shrimp decay, which produces ammonia to feed the nitrifying bacteria. There are a few drawbacks with this method, one being that the hobbyist really has no way to know how much ammonia is being produced by the decaying shrimp, and the aquarium does not look very good with dead shrimp laying on the bottom. Also, the organic material of the shrimp can cause bacteria blooms which turn the aquarium water cloudy. This method works but it takes time and patience and you will probably see a spike in ammonia and nitrite if you add a medium to heavy load of fish after the initial cycling. Note that some people use flake fish food instead of shrimp but this is not recommended because flake food does not have much organic material compared to shrimp and so does not add a lot of ammonia to the water, but you can use cut fish instead of shrimp.

Then the AI tells is this:
Liquid Bacteria: Purchase a concentrated nitrifying bacteria starter (such as Tetra SafeStart or FritzZyme) and dose according to the instructions.

The nitrifying bacteria do not form spores, they reproduce by dividing. Almost no brands of starter bacteria contain Nitrospira due to patents. So Fritz does not have the needed bacteria in its bottle. Read Dr. Hovanevcs and other papers on this topic and you will see that what Fritz says it in its bacteria starter for nitrite is:

The primary nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) found in FritzZyme products belong to the genus Nitrobacter. [1]
The above is credited to be from Fritz. Now here is what Dr. Hovanec's paper states about this:

Identification of putative Nitrospira-Like NOB.​

Five samples were screened for NOB by either clone library development or DGGE. A total of 96 clones or excised bands were partially sequenced. Of these, 11 were highly similar to members of the Nitrospira group but none were similar to Nitrobacter spp.
Incidentally, since this and many other papers in support of Nitrospira being the nitrite oxidizer in tank, one of the biggest discoveries about some strains of Nitrospira was:

Abstract​


Nitrification, the oxidation of ammonia via nitrite to nitrate, has always been considered as a two-step process catalyzed by chemolithoautotrophic microorganisms oxidizing either ammonia or nitrite. No known nitrifier carries out both steps, although complete nitrification should be energetically advantageous. This functional separation has puzzled microbiologists for a century. Here we report on the discovery and cultivation of a completely nitrifying bacterium from the genus Nitrospira, a globally distributed group of nitrite oxidizers. The genome of this chemolithoautotrophic organism encodes both the pathways for ammonia and nitrite oxidation, which are concomitantly expressed during growth by ammonia oxidation to nitrate. Genesaffiliated with the phylogenetically distinct ammonia monooxygenase andhydroxylamine dehydrogenase genes of Nitrospira are present in many environments and were retrieved on Nitrospira-contigs in new metagenomes from engineered systems. These findings fundamentally change our picture of nitrification and point to completely nitrifying Nitrospira as key components of nitrogen-cycling microbial communities.
from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5152751/

Also, as the abstract mentions, it was also discovered that there is another group oof mircroorganisms which can oxidize ammonia- they are Archaea. I know that De. Hovanec has these in his starter product in additions to the ammonia oxidizing bacteria.

The cycle and the way it works and the organisms involved have been a pet subject of mine for at least 20 years, I must have over 50 research papers on this bookmarked. If you would like about a month's worth of reading on this subject, i am happy to send you links to the papers.
 
Last edited:
AI is good if it source is 100% correct otherwise it can be very bad. This is for those item that are boolean; for grey areas it is great at giving opinions of others but lousy at discerning alternative facts from real facts.
 
I agree with pretty much all of the above. AI is a good tool for certain things. I use it for complex or very specific searches. I have an app called Liner on my phone that is really quite good: It doesn't try to converse with you; it doesn't pretend it wants to be your buddy; it isn't trying to give you affirmation. It's just a search engine and information compiler, and a rather good one. It even gives sources.

The more mainstream ones like Gemini and ChatGPT are fun with their conversational style, but they are a little too quick to figure out what I want to hear and just give me that, especially on issues that are essentially opinions or judgement calls. So I'll use them to get ideas or discover new ways of doing things, but I verify EVERYTHING elsewhere.

If I built bows based on what Gemini told me? I'd make even more worthless ones than I already do. :lol: I suspect much the same is true of fish keeping advice.
 
IMO, AI is a tool for general surface level dispensing of data. It should not be relied on for in depth issues. Research, readings, and genuine investigations should be the cornerstone to fully understanding the complex facets of successful fish keeping. For that matter, getting information from specific highly respected sources in all areas of study should trump AI. Many, if not most, areas of knowledge in fish keeping go well beyond the 2-3 sentence AI reply for a question put forth. AI should give potential ideas of further investigation, not just “canned answers”.
 
I use it for car repair related questions and for that I find it works very well indeed.
 
I just read an article about an experiment where the various AI systems were tasked with running the world. The results weren't bad, except Elon Musk's Grok managed to destroy the place rapidly. A lot will depend on the ethics of who owns these tools, and how they are set up. Do I trust billionaire oligarch ethics? Nope. Do you?

Hey, I ended with a question, just like many AI texts!

So in the big picture, I'm concerned. In the superficial use, and again, in the scientific use, it's impressive. For aquariums, right now, for technical issues not demanding judgment, it's a petco fishcatcher. You'll get the basics, and sometimes they'll be right.
 
Hahahahaha! You guys are funny. I know many of you are avid reader of PhD dissertations on fish science. That's not me. I'm sure AI would give you agita. For me with basic questions about cycling, bioloads, questions on plants and lighting, basically beginner to intermediate general knowledge I'm fairly confident it is a great tool.

I'm also fairly confident that the deeper you go, the more likely you are to get less than ideal info. But for what it is, I've found it very helpful.
 
IMO, AI is a tool for general surface level dispensing of data.
The problem is it dispenses bad data just as much as good data.


Here is the way i view it: If you have no clue waht you are doing then you don't nkow if AI gives you good or bad advice. If you know what you are doing you can tell if the ai data is good or bad but then why ask for it to begin with.
 
The problem is it dispenses bad data just as much as good data.


Here is the way i view it: If you have no clue waht you are doing then you don't nkow if AI gives you good or bad advice. If you know what you are doing you can tell if the ai data is good or bad but then why ask for it to begin with.

I think that is terribly over-simplified. Dispenses "just as much bad data as good data" is an unsupportable statistic, it's a simple bias on your part. The whole debate over AI seems to be a barbell approach with "AI is the devil incarnate" on one end of the bar, and "AI is next great wave of knowledge expansion" on the other. Despite neither being likely to be true, the truth lies in the middle somewhere--it seems to be the way things go.

I dove deep into tank cycling here after screwing it up, and learned a LOT. I read a LOT, here and elsewhere. I did a lot of my own research. Then I started having conversations with the Google AI, and I can tell you it is very good, it asks relevant follow up questions, it's analysis and recommendations are sound--it's a great tool.

One has to understand that it will make a goof occasionally, and it will do so with confidence and misplaced bravado. But for the most part, once you understand it's limitations and check multiple sources, I can say it's a terrific tool for a new aquarist to get advice on cycling a new tank, including specific products, timetables, what is going on during the process. It's all very good.

No offense intended but anyone who says "it dispenses as much bad information as good information" as it it's a total toilet, just has not experimented with it enough and is simply displaying personal bias. The other part of that barbell evaluation is it's either gospel or useless. As usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's like any other tool. Figure out what it's good at, and use it for that. I used a chainsaw to trim my hedges...once. The trouble with an information service (basically what most AI is) is that you don't know what it's good at unless you already know some stuff. I've asked it questions about bow making and aquariums and a few other things I already know a great deal about, because I can evaluate how good its info is. What I find is that it's pretty good at giving basic facts, which is usually what I want. For anything involving nuance or understanding or decision making? It really is a roll of the dice.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top