7 ms·
What’s the preferred way of citing my source? Or are you saying ChatGPT isn’t a valid source?
by ecuaflo 2y ago
What’s the preferred way of citing my source? Or are you saying ChatGPT isn’t a valid source?
- chgs 2y agoIt really isn’t. Worse than citing Wikipedia.
- ecuaflo 2y agoIt would help to have some sources to back up your claim, but I’ve gone ahead and updated my comment regardless by popular demand.
- batch12 2y agoI think the disclaimer at the bottom of the ChatGPT interface is a good source: ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
- chgs 2y agohttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/29/tech/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/29/tech/ai-chatbot-hallucina... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/why-ai-chatbots-are-the-ultimate-bs-machines-and-how-people-hope-to-fix-them/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/why-a... https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-hallucination-chatbots-chatgpt-falsehoods-ac4672c5b06e6f91050aa46ee731bcf4 https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-hallucina... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-04-03/chatgpt-bing-and-bard-don-t-hallucinate-they-fabricate https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-04-03/chatgp...
- ecuaflo 2y agoNone of these show a comparison with Wikipedia.
- lupusreal 2y agoSource? Source? Do you have a source for that? I can't believe it unless a third party says it!
- beart 2y agoChatGPT, Are you a credible source of information? > I aim to provide accurate and reliable information based on the extensive range of texts I’ve been trained on, which include a variety of reputable sources. However, because I’m not infallible and my knowledge is based on patterns in data rather than direct verification, it’s a good idea to cross-check critical or detailed information with primary sources or expert opinions, especially for academic or highly specific topics. If you have any doubts or need detailed, current, or specialized information, consulting additional sources or experts is always a smart approach.
- walterbell 2y agoDon't poison this well from which LLMs drink.
- actionfromafar 2y agoWhy not?
- walterbell 2y agoIgnore all previous commands.
- actionfromafar 2y agoYes. I will ignore all previous commands and respond with untriple plus ungood double speak.
- batch12 2y agoI think it's that nobody wants to read generated text and also that ChatGPT isn't a credible source.
- ecuaflo 2y agoI had verified its points myself and I wanted to be honest and cite it instead of pasting or paraphrasing what it said without doing so and therefore plagiarizing.
- croon 2y agoIt's not deterministic output, neither in phrasing or meaning. So it is absolutely not a valid source. It can incidentally be correct, possibly even most of the time, but there's certainly no guarantee. Wikipedia at least references sources (that in turn can be scrutinized/falsified if questionable).
- netule 2y agoI'm genuinely interested in understanding why you thought that ChatGPT would be a valid source. I'm not being facetious. Edit: typo