Citing ChatGPT

By cryptoref on Fri, 02/17/2023 - 21:56

Forums

This is purely for fun. No comments as to WHY someone would cite ChatGPT (or any of the others). But as a little lite humor, let's see if we can put one together. I'm using here 3.42 the Instant Message format.

ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com) with David Grawrock [USERID FOR PRIVATE USE], chat, "Age of majority in 1837 Tennessee" (https://chat.openai.com/chat/651470ab-ba4d-4dc9-b279-e02947a8cc4e [password protected]); privately held by Grawrock, [(E-ADDRESS), & STREET ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE], Ivins, Utah, 2023.

Oh and the result was some nice prose and absolutely wrong information, even after asking for a citation it got the source wrong. So I'll not be using it for real.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 02/18/2023 - 08:56

Well reasoned, cryptoref.

These AI bots, in their present incarnations, generate a personal message, with nothing stored publicly for others to consult. We're also told that it generates "unique" responses when different users ask the same questions. Ergo, the most reasonable format for citation would be that of a personal message. 

Beyond that, we might debate several issues:

1. Why would the citation need to carry two different URLs with one being the long-form of the other. Do we do this for, say, NARA or FamilySearch?

2. If we are the party chatting with the bot, do we need to record our "userid for private use"? Do we want to record, in our research notes, our user id for any password-protected site?

3. Why the decision to place the phrase "password protected" into the parentheses that contain the publication data? Isn't our use of almost every website with personal interaction "password protected" in today's world? Also to be considered here: the content of the parentheses containing URL : date is governed by longstanding rules for parenthetical publication data; essentially, we cite place, date, and publisher if appropriate.

4. When citing ChatGPT, do we need to use a descriptive field that says "chat," given that the name of the entity we just cited identifies the nature of the message we're citing? (On the other hand, if we were using Bing's chat function, that field would be needed.)

How about this adaptation?

ChatGPT with David Grawrock, "Age of majority in 1837 Tennessee" (https://chat.openai.com/chat/651470ab-ba4d-4dc9-b279-e02947a8cc4e : 18 February 2023); privately held by Grawrock, [(E-ADDRESS), & STREET ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE], Ivins, Utah, 2023.

 

 

 

Submitted bycryptorefon Sat, 02/18/2023 - 10:40

1 I added the URL to ChatGPT to help identify it. As we go forward the AI's are going to have more human names like Eliza. The thought was the URL made it explicit that it was an AI.

2 Nope we don't. That was too much

3 I like to include some reference on the URL that tells someone why, when they click it, it doesn't work. You have to pay or get a password or be in the right location (that happens with some of my Norwegian links). Not necessary but a helpful hint. The URL date catches me out. I like to put URL date reviewed in the first footnote of a doc. When I write a standalone citation, I'm forgetting to put that back in. Gotta do better.

4 While I agree it's redundant for ChatGPT, as they get more human names, we are going to need it.

So my change would be to add the [AI] after ChatGPT. Not positive on my [password] but in my mind it makes sense.

ChatGPT [AI] with David Grawrock, "Age of majority in 1837 Tennessee" (https://chat.openai.com/chat/651470ab-ba4d-4dc9-b279-e02947a8cc4e : 18 February 2023); privately held by Grawrock, [(E-ADDRESS), & STREET ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE], Ivins, Utah, 2023.

I forgot to add that it was totally unreliable as to dates and actual Tennessee code. So I think in real life I'd add a second sentence

The factual information provided by ChatGPT was incorrect and improperly sourced, prose accepted but edited to correct factual errors.

Submitted byCphillippson Sun, 02/19/2023 - 14:31

This is a very interesting idea to me of citing an AI like this. 

The question occurred to me reading this is if the version number of the AI should be cited? ChatGPT is a good example of this as we know GPT4 should be coming soon and will likely significantly change the results given. 

 

I "think" that's what you get by showing date and URL. If that isn't sufficient then I'd add some notice in the [AI] bracket, maybe version. But we don't do versioning for FamilySearch or Ancestry as to their search algorithms when we indicate the number of results.

I lean towards not including the version, but could be persuaded that it's necessary.