What Happens to Mushroom Science in a Post-Truth Internet?

TOGETHER WITH

It was Elan Trybuch at the New York Mycological Society who raised the alarm to a journalist at Vox Media early last year: The advent of widespread AI, or artificial intelligence, was starting to threaten access to accurate, scientific information —specifically, information around mushrooms.

The covers of several mushroom foraging books had caught his eye, and for all the wrong reasons. “They had mushroom structures that don’t quite make sense”, he told Vox, going on to say that the content of the books seemed completely invented, talking about mushrooms that did not even exist. It was very obvious, to Trybuch, that the books had not been written by a person with the expertise required to tell the general public which wild mushrooms were safe to eat, and which were not. In fact, he believed that they had been written by AI.

The rise of ChatGPT and other AI models has, provably, led to a wave of content published with the express intent of earning easy money, without the oversight required for the ethical and harm-reduction-focused production of health-related information, such as which mushrooms are safe to eat. Traditional publishing has long had safeguards in place to ensure that the information it publishes is accurate and safe (though this, too, is diminishing as the number of books published increases significantly); this is what fact-checkers are for.

However, self-publishing, coupled with on-demand publishing services from platforms like Amazon, which incur no upfront printing costs, has allowed anyone to produce a book without the editorial support traditional publishers provide. While this has had the effect (in theory) of democratising book publishing, it has also opened the door for those who are using AI to churn out false information. While they might never make a bestselling book, they are able to con a few people out of their hard-earned money by making something that looks, at least, like something to be trusted. It stands to reason that mushrooms, a highly popular topic, would be targeted by those using these methods. When it comes to mushrooms, however, wrong information can be not just annoying, but dangerous, and even fatal.

In August last year, a Reddit user posted on the r/LegalAdviceUK subreddit asking for advice: their whole family, they claimed, had been hospitalised after consuming poisonous mushrooms that they had understood to be safe. The book they were using to forage was purchased from a “major online retailer”, and the post believed the book to have been authored by AI. The text revealed unfinished sentences, statements that addressed the reader (or generator) directly, and a series of random questions that were completely out of place — all signs that it was not written by a person or overseen by an editor. The online retailer had warned them against posting images of the book, citing copyright issues. Clearly, they were keen to avoid legal responsibility for the hospitalisation of the poster’s wife and son.

But it isn’t just the world of scam books that is threatened by this issue. At the end of last year, 404 Media reported that an AI chatbot was added by Meta to a mushroom-foraging Facebook group, and, when asked a direct question, gave answers that suggested ways of cooking and consuming Sarcosphaera coronaria, a fungus that has caused at least one documented death. The chatbot responded by not only saying it was edible, but by saying that “cooking methods mentioned by some enthusiasts include sautéing in butter, adding to soups or stews, and pickling.”

This would be dangerous if it were being posted in a public forum, where it would be seen by many, but it would also allow others to fact-check the information and assert their greater knowledge. What makes this chatbot even more risky, however, is that Facebook users interact with it directly, in the Messenger feature—meaning that others with greater knowledge have no capacity to intervene. The chatbot was a feature no one in the group requested, and its presence undermined the group’s approach to harm reduction and clear, accurate education. In layman’s terms, it fucked everything up.

Those of us who existed on the internet 10-15 years ago are now realizing that we lived in an incredibly lucky, wildly unlikely time. We had been given direct access to almost all the knowledge accumulated in human history, and we were kept well informed by a complex web of gatekeeping and fact-checking measures that we barely noticed or even knew existed. If you Googled something in the year 2010, the top results were true, aggregated not in response to the author paying money or the sponsors insisting so, but because it was popular, correct, and helpful. This time, this golden time, is now long gone.

First, it was the advertising that eroded our trust in the algorithm; then it was the widespread understanding of how to game Google’s SEO, with highly paid SEO experts teaching company executives how to push their company’s content to the top of Google's rankings at a ludicrous expense. In the last couple of years, it has been AI that has ruined Google: if you Google search for almost anything now, AI-generated versions of the images you’re looking for will be sprinkled throughout the search results, sometimes being indistinguishable from the real thing unless you have cause to inspect them closely. In some searches, AI-generated images dominate the entire first page. Google added an AI summary at the top of each search page in 2024, and personal experience has already shown that it is often incorrect. Google, it seems, has long since abandoned its mission to “to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

And then there are AI search engines themselves. A 2025 piece in Columbia Journalism Review, which compared eight AI search engines, highlighted the stunningly bad rate of accuracy of answers given by AI chatbots:

“Collectively, [the chatbots] provided incorrect answers to more than 60 percent of queries. Across different platforms, the level of inaccuracy varied, with Perplexity answering 37 percent of the queries incorrectly, while Grok 3 had a much higher error rate, answering 94 percent of the queries incorrectly.”

On top of this, there are sites we may not use to search for information, but through which we almost passively consume it: social media. Under Musk’s control, Twitter has removed almost all of its safeguards and fact-checking. Meta, which encompasses both Facebook and Instagram, abandoned its fact-checking in January this year, whilst on a years-long project to censor content related to mushrooms or other substances. TikTok is basically the wild west. Into this desert of fact-checking steps the influencers who want nothing but enormous followings and monetization, meaning that accuracy makes way for bold, often completely unproven claims about whatever it is that will make them the most money. Everything is clickbait, and nothing is correct. The era of accuracy is over: We are in a post-truth world.

It seems clear to us that the tools we have used to search for information in the past, and the new tools being pushed on us despite widespread cynicism about them, are no longer suitable for our everyday use. But what does all of this mean for science? Specifically, what does it mean for science-backed information about mushrooms, and psilocybin?

In the decade since we wrote the first edition of The Psilocybin Mushroom Bible — a book born of our frustration with the lack of reputable, science-backed information on growing psilocybin mushrooms — the landscape of psilocybin information has changed significantly. And not necessarily for the better. However, the advice we gave in that book remains applicable: don’t trust just anyone. Look for the science. Read the whitepapers, read the studies. Experiment. Try things out. Build yourself a body of knowledge that doesn’t rely on others.

Here are some of the questions to ask yourself in your quest to do this:

Is it AI?

Not all AI-generated content is wrong (though it is all catastrophically bad for the environment), but figuring out if it IS AI is your first step to analyzing it properly. If it’s a book listed on one of the world’s largest book-purchasing platforms, ask yourself: Is it published by a reputable publisher? Do they have a website you can find? If not, is it self-published? Can you find any information at all on the purported author? Their social media, their website, their level of expertise? Has it been reviewed by real outlets, rather than just receiving lots of potentially paid-for reviews on the same site that’s selling it?

What is this person selling?

When it comes to social media, which is increasingly all about hype, it can be very difficult to see where real experts are just engaging with clickbait to increase their visibility (something that is all but demanded by such platforms now), and where their information is actually inaccurate. A good place to start is by examining what they are trying to sell you.

A person selling lion’s mane mushroom capsules has a vested interest in making you believe that such capsules are basically miraculous. A person selling grow kits has a vested interest in making you believe that you cannot grow by traditional methods, nor make your own kits. A person selling highly expensive trip-sitting services has a vested interest in making you believe that to do it without them is inherently dangerous. Do you see what we’re saying here? Selling a service or a product doesn’t necessarily mean that what they’re saying isn’t accurate. But it gives them more reason to lean into hype and away from the science — so when you evaluate them, you have to bear that in mind.

Can I find proof of this in a research paper?

In this strange period where people making (inaccurate and unfounded) health claims can get airtime on some of the most widely listened to podcasts in the world, regardless of whether what they’re saying is true or not, it is absolutely essential for you to look up the research yourself. Scientific papers are broadly accessible to all on the internet; even if you can’t read the whole paper, you can usually see its premise and its conclusions. Don’t believe any claim that these people make. Look it up for yourself — and not through headlines that just parrot the hype, but in the actual peer-reviewed, fact-checked, published research paper that was written by scientists.

Do others agree with this?

Consensus in the scientific community doesn’t always guarantee that something is correct — science changes with evidence, after all — but if one thing is being said by a whole bunch of experts in the field, you have good cause to believe it. If it’s being said by just one person who is claiming to be a “maverick”, then tread carefully. Treat the claim with as much suspicion as you can muster.

What happens if I doubt absolutely everything that hasn’t been scientifically proven?

The philosopher Immanuel Kant once performed a thought experiment where he doubted absolutely everything except that which was beyond doubt, and it led him back to one of the most fundamental philosophical statements of all time: cogito ergo sum, or I think, therefore I am.

We’re not suggesting quite this level of doubt, but we are suggesting that you strip back the things you’ve been led to believe about mushrooms, both consuming and growing, to those that you can prove or that have been proved through the scientific method. This then forms the foundation of your knowledge, on top of which you can build. Not every block you build has to be infallible; you can take something on board in the knowledge that it may or may not be correct, and hold it lightly. But your foundations, at least, will be strong.

This is, of course, a lot of work to do. It is work we’re incentivised away from, by hype and social media and traditional media and everything else that tells us to think less and consume more. But this is the real work. This is what we must do if we wish to be informed individuals and to follow the science regarding mushrooms.

This post is a syndication from “A Quickly Changing Kaleidoscope,” written by Dr. K. Mandrake and Virginia Haze, the authors of the critically acclaimed The Psilocybin Mushroom Bible and The Psilocybin Chef Cookbook.

💌 If you loved this email, forward it to a psychonaut in your life.

Editorial Process

DoubleBlind is a trusted resource for news, evidence-based education, and reporting on psychedelics. We work with leading medical professionals, scientific researchers, journalists, mycologists, indigenous stewards, and cultural pioneers. Read about our editorial policy and fact-checking process here.