And so instead of looking at search results you looked at the section written by an AI, that is wrong so often that people regularly make fun of it, and then didn’t even bother to check whether it was correct/made sense or include context for why the result of the (unknown) search terms was necessary.
I personally would argue that Wikipedia or a dictionary are more likely to be correct in most cases but I don’t even know what you were looking for.
I’m just confused why you or anybody else would want that AI overview pasted here. Is it secretly just to annoy everybody and get exactly this kind of attention?
Well, the top-level commenter fixed their comment, so mine served its purpose, despite this alleged “circular definition.” Maybe next time take a step back and appreciate that not everyone has to use the same resources and methods you do.
And so instead of looking at search results you looked at the section written by an AI, that is wrong so often that people regularly make fun of it, and then didn’t even bother to check whether it was correct/made sense or include context for why the result of the (unknown) search terms was necessary.
I personally would argue that Wikipedia or a dictionary are more likely to be correct in most cases but I don’t even know what you were looking for.
I’m just confused why you or anybody else would want that AI overview pasted here. Is it secretly just to annoy everybody and get exactly this kind of attention?
Unless you can tell me how it was incorrect, your response is performative and attention-whoring.
Well I can’t anymore for obvious reasons but I believe the contradiction was the circular definition of one of the terms.
Well, the top-level commenter fixed their comment, so mine served its purpose, despite this alleged “circular definition.” Maybe next time take a step back and appreciate that not everyone has to use the same resources and methods you do.