4 ms·
I have a very different experience with GPT-4. It always provides about 6-10 references for every response, and they work perfectly every single time. I reali
by chaxor 3y ago
I have a very different experience with GPT-4. It always provides about 6-10 references for every response, and they work perfectly every single time. I realize the hallucination problem and check everything every time, but compared to 3.5 (which often got titles a bit wrong or mixed up some authors, etc), it's astoundingly good at providing reasonable and factual information most of the time when it gives references that work pretty much every time.
Definitely always check though. It's great for getting over staring at a blank page and getting writing on something where you probably already know the references that will be called anyway, such that you can edit out any subtle over reaches that are made.
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoIn that case, there's no reason to cite ChatGPT at all, just as you wouldn't cite Google. Cite the actual references, which you manually checked.
- falcor84 3y agoI think if you significantly benefitted from ChatGPT in preparing the paper, then you should still cite it, just like you would cite a software package (e.g. scipy), even if in principle you could have done it by hand.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoI didn't know that was standard, but where is the line? You would never cite e.g. Microsoft Word, right? Coincidently, that will soon have ChatGPT built-in.
- falcor84 3y agoAPA for example says the following: "... a reference is not necessary for standard software... Examples are Microsoft Word, Java, and Adobe Photoshop." https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-software-in-apa-style.html https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2015/01/how-to-cite-softw...