4 ms·

> I’ve seen a lot of places that require students to reference their ChatGPT use — and I think it is wrong headed. Because it is not a source to cite! Why is i

by JadeNB 2y ago

> I’ve seen a lot of places that require students to reference their ChatGPT use — and I think it is wrong headed. Because it is not a source to cite! Why is it not a source? I think that it is not if "source" means "repository of truth," but I don't think that's the only valid meaning of "source." For example, if I were reporting on propaganda, then I think that I could cite actual propaganda as a source, even though it is not a repository of truth. Now maybe that doesn't count because the propaganda is serving as a true record of untrue statements, but couldn't I also cite a source for a fictional story, that is untrue but that I used as inspiration? In the same way, it seems to me that I could cite ChatGPT as a source that helped me to shape and formulate my thoughts, even if it did not tell me any facts, or at least if I independently checked the 'facts' that it asserted. That's "the devil's I," by the way; I am long past writing school essays. Although, of course, proper attribution is appropriate long past school days, and, indeed, as an academic researcher, I do try my best to attribute people who helped me to come up with an idea, even if the idea itself is nominally mine.

dr_dshiv 2y ago
Because otherwise it becomes convoluted. It is acceptable to cite and source published material. Having to account for the source of one’s ideas, however, citing friends and influences - it shouldn’t be a moral requirement, just imagine!
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > Because otherwise it becomes convoluted. It is acceptable to cite and source published material. Having to account for the source of one’s ideas, however, citing friends and influences - it shouldn’t be a moral requirement, just imagine! But there is, I think, a big gap between "it is not a source to cite" from your original post, and "it shouldn't be a moral requirement" in this one. I think that, while not every utterance should be annotated with references to every person or resource that contributed to it, there is a lot of room particularly in academic discourse for acknowledging informal contributions just as much as formal ones.
  - cfmcdonald 2y ago
    The point of citing sources is so that the reader can retrace the evidential basis on which the writer's claims rest. A citation to "Chat GPT" doesn't help with this at all. Saying "Chat GPT helped me write this" is more like an acknowledgment than a citation.
    - Fomite 2y ago
      Again, it is standard practice to cite things like (personal communication) or (Person, unpublished) to document where a fact is coming from, even if it cannot be retraced (which also comes up when publishing talks whose recordings or transcripts are not available).
    - dr_dshiv 2y ago
      This is my point and better stated. I always acknowledge ChatGPT in my writing and never cite it.
      - JadeNB 2y ago
        > I always acknowledge ChatGPT in my writing and never cite it. These are not the uses with which I am familiar—as Fomite says in a sibling comment, I am used to referring to citing personal communications; but, if you are using "cite" to mean only "produce as a reproducible testament to truth," and "source" only as "something that reproducibly demonstrates truth," which is a distinction whose value I can acknowledge making even if it's not the one I am used to, then your argument makes more sense to me.

by JadeNB 2y ago

dr_dshiv 2y ago

Because otherwise it becomes convoluted. It is acceptable to cite and source published material. Having to account for the source of one’s ideas, however, citing friends and influences - it shouldn’t be a moral requirement, just imagine!

JadeNB 2y ago
> Because otherwise it becomes convoluted. It is acceptable to cite and source published material. Having to account for the source of one’s ideas, however, citing friends and influences - it shouldn’t be a moral requirement, just imagine! But there is, I think, a big gap between "it is not a source to cite" from your original post, and "it shouldn't be a moral requirement" in this one. I think that, while not every utterance should be annotated with references to every person or resource that contributed to it, there is a lot of room particularly in academic discourse for acknowledging informal contributions just as much as formal ones.
- cfmcdonald 2y ago
  The point of citing sources is so that the reader can retrace the evidential basis on which the writer's claims rest. A citation to "Chat GPT" doesn't help with this at all. Saying "Chat GPT helped me write this" is more like an acknowledgment than a citation.
  - Fomite 2y ago
    Again, it is standard practice to cite things like (personal communication) or (Person, unpublished) to document where a fact is coming from, even if it cannot be retraced (which also comes up when publishing talks whose recordings or transcripts are not available).
  - dr_dshiv 2y ago
    This is my point and better stated. I always acknowledge ChatGPT in my writing and never cite it.
    - JadeNB 2y ago
      > I always acknowledge ChatGPT in my writing and never cite it. These are not the uses with which I am familiar—as Fomite says in a sibling comment, I am used to referring to citing personal communications; but, if you are using "cite" to mean only "produce as a reproducible testament to truth," and "source" only as "something that reproducibly demonstrates truth," which is a distinction whose value I can acknowledge making even if it's not the one I am used to, then your argument makes more sense to me.