On Fri, 2026-07-03 at 16:47 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > Yes, I just linked to the Amazon page, which appears to be wrong. > > As regards the ChatGPT results, clearly LLMs can hallucinate and one > should always check what they say. I merely posted this as an example > of what to search for.
Yes, and that's part of the problem. Artificial Idiots are trained on data from the whole world (which is often the collective wisdom of idiots), and it has less of a clue than many humans do about when they're reading wrong things. At least a search engine just find results and shows them to you, if the end result has an error it may get corrected by the author at some time, and the search results automatically get corrected, too. Heck knows how an author would convince an AI that's ingested their data before that it needs to update it. Personally, I find AI results on pages are like dealing with people with mental problems with a poor grasp on reality. No, I'm not being flippant, I've spent many years having to do that. The comparison struck me quite disturbingly, and we're facing a future of our lives being dominated by having to deal with AI between you and whatever it is you're trying to do (particularly bureaucracy gone mad). I've googled for things and get appalled by the AI crap that appears at the top of the page. Bulldust information, attributed to some link that doesn't tally with what it produced. I've seen rubbish attributed to me, but it was only when I drilled down further into it that it shows three different sources behind its drivel, with something tangentially related by me, but the main page results attributed the whole lot to me. But, as I said before, I've seen utter nonsense completely attributed to one source, but the link it provides has nothing to do with the garbage it produced. > You may want to look at this Reddit thread (from a few years ago): > > https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/rd75a0/why_does_nobody_produce_a_4k_1610_3840x2400/ We seem to be stuck with the same issue as when cinemascope came out. Production houses trying to up-themselves with wider and wider formats, despite the fact that very-wide images aren't particularly useful in most instances. Sure, it works as a long shot in a western, but is crap for close-ups, medium shots, and indoor work. In most cases, screen HEIGHT is important. How big a person looks, whether you're staring at someone's face too closely or can't see them well enough is generally related to height. It's the same with computing. For those that code, write, or read, screen height is very important. Without it, you only get a keyhole view of what you're looking at. Extreme width just makes it very hard to read. Sure, you can put two or three things side-by-side for reading notes while typing. But you still want height for page views, and without having to look at tiny renditions. Very wide monitors also make for unstable wobbly displays. Even 16:9 ones are often like they're on a pogo stick, bouncing about as you type (even on a solid desk). -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1160.119.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 4 14:43:51 UTC 2024 x86_64 (yes, this is the output from uname for this PC when I posted) Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
