I tried a few stupid words convinations like "blue banana" https://mycyclopedia.co/e/b2fc24e7-21cb-43b2-b5c1-224048982e... and got interesting results. This is strange because it combines a fake photo of a blue banana fruit with a description of the European region known as blue banana.
It's strange that each topic has a "conclusion" section. Is it common in dead tree encyclopedias? I expected a format more similar to Wikipedia.
The images are real images from the web. In most cases they match the topic you search for but in some cases they turn out to be unrelated. (I already have an idea on how to try and improve accuracy here).
As for the conclusions, you're right now that you point it out. I don't recall coming across conclusion sections in other encyclopedias I read. it's a format GPT (which is the underlying LLM I'm using) seems to like to use by default. I didn't disable that behavior because I guess a conclusion to wrap everything up for the reader isn't a bad thing?
About conclusions, I guess it's the standard high school soulless esay that must have a conclusion at the bottom. I think it's better to remove the conclusions so it looks like Wikipedia, but if you like it you (obviously) can keep it.
> I thought the image was generated by AI.
That was my initial plan, but I found AI-generated images to be more entertaining than informative, especially when the topic is new to the reader.
P.S. I don't know if you already tried this, but if you highlight any snippet of text in an entry, you can start a realtime chat about that text (without having to provide any context yourself).