Question: How can ChatGPT be properly cited if it is used crucially to support an academic process? #ChatGPT
ChatGPT has no ideas of its own, and is not a valid source. Follow the idea instead, track the sources. This may be a significant amount of work, we write about why this is useful here: https://sentientsyllabus.substack.com/p/chatgpts-achilles-heel
But sometimes you just want to cite the algorithm for its own sake. Cite that as a "synthesized communication" ... and follow the "personal communication" format of your favourite citation style.
HTH
#SentientSyllabus #ChatGPT #AI #Education #HigherEd #University #Academia #syllabus
Are "personal communication" citation a thing? Isn't the point of citation, (with standardised style for reference) to make it notionally possible for a reader to seek the source?
Otherwise, it's literally "a little birdie told me", isn't it?
I would ask ChatGPT to come up with a source, verify, and cite the source. Cause it has been known to output falsehoods.
"Personal communication" is very much a thing in scholarship – just because some information was not published neither means we can claim that the idea was ours, nor are we prohibited to communicate the idea. That's why the "personal communication" is for. Each common citation format has their own conventions - here is the link to APA: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/personal-communications
Calling AI output a "Synthesized Communication" fits this case perfectly. We are reporting another's words, but the format is volatile.
Mind you: that does not remove the obligation to find the source of an idea, if that is the focus of our writing. "ChatGPT thinks that Fleischman and Pons invented cold fusion." can be cited as a "synthesized communication". "Fleischman and Pons invented cold fusion." needs a source.
HTH
🙂
