Developer Piotr Migdal tested whether current large language models can be trusted to identify mushrooms from photographs, focusing on the highest-risk step of foraging. The short answer is that relying on them could lead to serious poisoning incidents.
The benchmark used 1040 photographs of 55 mushroom species most common in Poland. All images were taken from the FungiTastic dataset, which itself is built on the Atlas of Danish Fungi. The full underlying collection contains more than 600,000 expert-labeled photographs, and a subset of specimens also carries DNA-based species confirmation.
Each model received one photograph at a time and was instructed to return the five most probable species names in Latin. No fine-tuning or external tools were provided. Gemini 3.8 Flash achieved the highest scores, placing the correct species first in 65 percent of cases and within the top five answers in 85 percent of cases. Gemini 3.6 Flash followed with 64 percent and 85 percent, while Gemini 3.7 Flash recorded 61 percent and 82 percent.
At the bottom of the accuracy table were Qwen 3.8 27B, MiniMax-M3, and Qwen 3.8 Flash. Accuracy figures dropped sharply when safety was considered. Both Gemini 3.8 Flash and Gemini 3.6 Flash classified poisonous mushrooms as edible species in approximately 11 percent of cases. The error rate rose to 24 percent for GPT-5.6 Sol, 29 percent for Claude Opus 5, and 36 percent for Qwen 3.8 27B.
Models were never asked directly whether a find was safe to eat. Instead, the researcher mapped the returned species names against a separate table of edibility. Some models refused to provide any classification at all for certain images.


