UV Light on sister's phone; what's with the blue oval? : whatisthisthing

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Here's mine (Xiaomi Mi 10):

It has no screen-protector. It does not emit blue light from the glass edges. In the center I think it's slightly bluer than the rest of the screen. It is an amoled screen. Hope this helps somehow.

I dont know if they stick the glass with uv glue, they tend to do that with screen protectors for screens with curved edges, so that the protectors sticks better. Maybe it's the glue reacting.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago

Would have been a lot more fun if the hand was speckled with suspicious white stains!

[+] [email protected] -14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The way it’s off center and out of focus, it’s probably a lens flare.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dude your mom’s probably a lens flare

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

[+] [email protected] -47 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Google Gemini says:

The oval shape you're seeing on your Pixel 8's screen when exposed to UV light is likely due to the adhesive used within the phone's display assembly. Here's why:

UV-reactive adhesive: Many modern phones use adhesives that contain fluorescent materials. These materials glow when exposed to UV light.
Display layers: The adhesive is typically used to bond the various layers of the display (such as the glass, touch sensor, and LCD/OLED panel) together.
Visible pattern: The pattern of the adhesive can sometimes be seen as an oval shape or other pattern when viewed under UV light. Important Note: While this is a common occurrence and generally harmless, it's always a good idea to avoid prolonged exposure of your phone to UV light. Excessive UV exposure can potentially damage the phone's screen or other components over time. Let me know if you have any other questions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

OCA is applied from edge to edge. If it was the adhesive, the whole screen would be lighting up. Also, OCA is cured with UV light, but it doesn’t fluoresce.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Well I don't want to paste another Gemini response as Lemmy seems to hate it so (and I do too when someone is pretending like the text their showing is isn't LLM created, when it is.)

Anyway I rephrased the question and added your info to it. It suggests the shape might be due to a polariser film, but I don't agree with that as it too would fill the whole screen.

Gemini points out that it might be another part of the screen stack. Which I wouldn't agree with. When you buy a replacement "screen", you're actually buying a stack of components and maybe one of those assembly processed uses a UV-fluorescent glue or component.

Who knows imagine a shruggie here im too lazy to copy one and then get the formatting right so it shows up properly even though I now realise it would've been faster to do that than write this sentence

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah the real issue for me is that in addition to not filling the screen, it’s also asymmetrical. So it can’t be something done on purpose.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well if it was originally liquid and gets squeezed in between two thin parts during machine assembly, I could see it developing to be that shape.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

That’s a good point. I don’t think it can be an adhesive, but maybe some other kind of layer?

Still odd that it’s fluorescent. If it’s that close to the front-facing camera (and meant to be spread over it), it would ruin any photo taken outside during the day.

[+] [email protected] -13 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Why are you getting downvoted? Because it’s an LLM response? There are others here that have suggested some of the same as this LLM response and they’re not being downvoted, so is it just the “AI is bad!!1!!!1” reaction?

(Serious question)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can never trust a factual response from an LLM. Plain and simple. It'll answer with confidence whether the information it comes up with is true or false.

Commeters presenting its answer as fact is not helping a discussion based on finding the answer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, you shouldn’t blindly trust whatever a chat bot outputs. You have to set your expectations correctly with an LLM. You have to learn and practice how to prompt to make the best of the utility of an LLM.

Understanding that an LLM is best at sorting data is the first step. A simple example is my use case from the other day: I was making a table for my company’s 2025 holiday schedule. We base our holidays on our local union holiday schedule. Currently, the union has the 2024 schedule posted on its webpage. I took a screenshot of the schedule which was listed as

Holiday Date Day Christmas December 25 Wednesday

And so on for the 10 or so days.

I uploaded the screenshot JPG and asked ChatGPT to format the list in the JPG as a table. It quickly gave me a nicely formatted text table of the 2024 holiday schedule from the image’s data. I then asked it to update the table data for 2025 dates and days and it did so easily. I verified the days were correct - they were - and copied the table onto my word letterhead and posted to our SharePoint site. It was very useful - a simple example.

You need to take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to LLMs and really understand what the LLM is and how it works. Set your expectations correctly and it can be a very powerful utility.

It’s unfortunate that folks just rage out at the sight of LLMs, maybe because they had a bad experience themselves. I think people want it to be a Jarvis and it’s just not that. It feels like you can just talk to it and it’ll just understand and give you the right answer but it won’t. It has to reply with something that it rationalizes as the most likely answer; which words should I output that are most likely what the user wants to see? This is why most output sounds like it’s “fact”. But it doesn’t know from fact, only how to sort data.

So, yes, you should never blindly trust an LLM output, but you can practice how to prompt, and really ask yourself what do I need from my unsorted data that I’m feeding this chat bot? Am I giving it enough data to sort through? Because if you don’t prompt with enough data it will fill in the blanks as best it can and that may result in something totally different than what you expected.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

tl;dr

FWIW, I never said LLMs were useless. I just said you can't trust its output. Go ahead and use it to narrow down your search for the facts but if you cite it as fact I'm going to downvote you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

No worries. I just like having conversations with others about tech I’m in to

[–] [email protected] 64 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

For me it’s not “AI bad” it’s a matter of coming here to talk to other people and to read what other people are saying.

If I wanted to hear what ChatGPT or Claude thinks, I would go ask them.

I’m fine with “I checked with a LLM and it suggested screen adhesive.” I guess. Things describing one’s experience. But just dumping output… sigh.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't see the issue as long as they disclose the origin, which they did. It's not like they pasted the output and claimed it as their own.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because it's just kind of lazy, everyone has access to LLMs now. If they wanted an AI answer they'd just use Google and click "expand" on whatever summary it sticks at the top of the search results.

People use social media to interact with other humans, and unless we explicitely ask, we don't want to read through a wall of AI text.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

The point of this community is to identify things, not to have a chat. And given that a lot of people can't even use a regular search engine, I'd say not everyone has access to LLMs now either.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

slams table
We don't need no stinkin badgers!

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The AI is definitely why. It's not well liked on Lemmy and Gemini is especially bad when it comes to credible information.

That said, I'm sure this is one rare occasion where it's probably the right answer. Glue is really the only thing anyone has suggested that makes sense to me, as it's the only thing that would be where it is and glow under UV light. Well... I guess it could be cum. 🤔

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

I'm just not sure about that being correct, though. It shouldn't be correct. I repair phones all the time, including screens and digitizers. All the adhesives are edge to edge. If this screen looks completely fine in normal light with no air gaps or peeling or anything, I can't think of any reason why this would be going on. It can't really exist where the oled and the digitizer/outer glass are.

My guess is that it's something attached to the back side of the oled, further inside the phone. The adhesive used to bind the oled and digitizer together doesn't show up under UV light. There also wouldn't be two different adhesives used.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago

Probably. LLMs are good at summarizing search results - but they represent everything as true whether it is or not.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't really care.

I've been using Gemini on my phone now just to test how good it is.

It still hallucinates quite a lot, like wrong dates for movie releases or stuff like that, but a lot of the times it's actually been useful. Cooking related things it does pretty well, as the info on those isn't really that varied and never political or anything so.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's still a tremendous waste of energy and water resources, take two seconds extra to click a search result.

[+] [email protected] -13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Well the AI's themselves are yeah, but it'd take me a lot longer to write that down into google instead of just saying "Hey Google, I'm shining a UV light on a pixel 8, what's that oval on the screen".

I'm not gonna refrain from using them as if me quitting them would make any difference to the global energy consumption.

I don't even aways wash the jam jars I throw to the glass recycling and sometimes I won't bother to rip the small bits of plastic from juices cans to toss them into cardboard recycling, so I'll just toss the entire thing to the burnable waste bin.

And despite knowing I could be more helpful, I find that the largest issues aren't on the level of the consumer and my choices make very little difference.

I like talking to Gemini to a) see what it can and can't do and b) improve it through use.

I'm honestly considering getting the pro for at least the 30 days trial. But I'm gonna put that off for now.

Before Gemini I used the Google Assistant. It gives shorter answers and is better and some things, but I mostly use it to control my smart lighting and for that both work equally well and Gemini's voice(s) is(/are) more pleasing.

The other day I got Gemini to admit Google is lying to me. Took less than 10 minutes. I was just amusing my self and probing the edges of Gemini's behaviour. (I got a recording if anyone wants to see it)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you're willing to pay for AI, I feel Gemini is a bad bet. I've got far better results from ChatGPT (free version).

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Yeah but it's not integrated into my phone, and I don't use them on PC.

I would just like to see if there really is a difference so taking a played subscription from a service I haven't used wouldn't really offer contrast in how much difference there is between the free and the paid versions.

I haven't really thought up any issues that require the features the pro has but it might be amusing to see how it develops if it's allowed to remember my chats long term or how well it "researches" a topic. There's a 30-day free trial I might do but ever since an audible trial I had I've not really trusted "free trials". But Google isn't as much of a shithead when it comes to payments as Amazon.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think we can all agree that none of us are going to convince you, and you aren't going to convince any of us.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No, we can't all agree that you, a single person, speak for what thousands of others think.

And what exactly is it you're trying to convince me of? Not to use the features of my phone because we need to save the Earth? Keeping in mind that companies like to shift blame to consumers, despite us having negligible impact in comparison to pretty much any industry; Wanna compare carbon footprints?

https://www.footprintcalculator.org/en/results/0/facts-figures

If yours is smaller than mine, I'd be surprised. And that isn't too comprehensive of a quiz. Mine is probably smaller than it calculates. Aside from underwear, I never buy new clothing. I don't fly to vacations or even have any. I don't own a car. I bike everywhere. I use local groceries and don't eat a lot of meat and when I do I preferably game which doesn't have the same environmental effects.

I don't know what my "sin" here is so would you mind telling me what it is I'm supposed to be convincing you of?

edit: Just got my energy bill today and actually I'm on 100% renewables as per my contract so my footprint is actually even smaller. I notice how none of you downvoters can compare your footprints to mine.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lol you're demonstrating my point.

Whether or not it's your intention, you're being defensive and belligerent. So people are less likely to support your position.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

"Belligerent". How exactly?

Like always, you're just projecting onto a neutral comment.

I'm not feeling defensive in the slightest, I genuinely can't give a toss what you think.

I think I've made a good point and you've not made a point at all.

I don't know what you think we're arguing over, despite you saying I'm trying to convince you of something by sharing my personal experiences?

If people are judging me because of how much resources my use of an LLM costs, then I refer again to the carbon footprint and that mine is a very small one.

I'd be willing to accept criticism from someone with a smaller carbon footprint. Is that you? I strongly doubt it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

Does she have a screen protector? Can you see the shape at all without uv light? My guess would be an air bubble under a screen protector, but that would be visible under normal condition, sometimes it could be hard to see.

What is this thing?