3 ms·
> 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, cit
by 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 agoThe 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- Fomite 2y agoAgain, it is standard practice to cite things like (personal communication) or (Person, unpublished) to document where a fact is coming from, even if it cannot be retraced (which also comes up when publishing talks whose recordings or transcripts are not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 agoThis 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.