I do not know about whatever institution the person above is talking about. However where I am at the moment you can use LLMs as a source, the citing of that is long and painful bit you could do it. I should note that it is heavily frowned upon by others to use generative ai, so most people I know use it as a summaryziation tool.
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted, it’s not incorrect and also acknowledges that generative AI is a bad source.
Nearly every type of source, no matter how good it is, has an official way to cite it. There are even guidelines on citing in person conversations, social media posts, tiktoks, etc.
People are allowed to cite it, but that doesn’t mean they should be. Especially in an academic setting lol.
imo another big concern is that half the search results are now LLM slop. Someone might be trying to avoid generative AI and still end up citing a slop article that they didn’t realize was AI.
Instead of listing the source on wiki, why not just use hard link and avoid wiki to being with?
The point of the lesson is to hide your tracks or show that you’re not completely lazy. Would you just list “library” as a source? They don’t care you use wiki, they care you incorrectly listing sources.
Wikipedia pages are synopsis’s and have a viewpoint of the person writing them. You use wiki like a library to find the sources to use and cite.
Why would they suggest and tell you how to “cheat” the system? If you’re not smart enough to realize Wikipedia isn’t a source itself, you are exactly why this lesson needs to be done lmfao.
Wiki would be like asking the librarian what the book is about, then using them as the source, you realize how silly this sounds now yeah?
The point is that Wikipedia (in theory) doesn’t make any argument about anything. It simply mirrors or summarizes information. Using Wikipedia as a source is somewhat similar to listing “the notes I made during class” as your source. Your source list is not meant to simply list where you got the information from, but actually list the origin of that information.
I guess it should be accepted in the sense that “my neighbour Bob” is a completely valid source, while at the same time being an utterly unreliable one.
People often confuse the two, but I think GPT falls in the same category as “pulled it out of my ass” in terms of reliability and citation validity.
deleted by creator
There is no way that’s true
I do not know about whatever institution the person above is talking about. However where I am at the moment you can use LLMs as a source, the citing of that is long and painful bit you could do it. I should note that it is heavily frowned upon by others to use generative ai, so most people I know use it as a summaryziation tool.
I’m not sure why this comment is downvoted, it’s not incorrect and also acknowledges that generative AI is a bad source.
Nearly every type of source, no matter how good it is, has an official way to cite it. There are even guidelines on citing in person conversations, social media posts, tiktoks, etc.
People are allowed to cite it, but that doesn’t mean they should be. Especially in an academic setting lol.
imo another big concern is that half the search results are now LLM slop. Someone might be trying to avoid generative AI and still end up citing a slop article that they didn’t realize was AI.
Sources:
https://guides.library.ubc.ca/GenAI/cite
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/personal-communications
https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/cite-generative-ai-references
summarization, in case you ever need it in a crossword puzzle
Thank you <3
Instead of listing the source on wiki, why not just use hard link and avoid wiki to being with?
The point of the lesson is to hide your tracks or show that you’re not completely lazy. Would you just list “library” as a source? They don’t care you use wiki, they care you incorrectly listing sources.
deleted by creator
Wikipedia pages are synopsis’s and have a viewpoint of the person writing them. You use wiki like a library to find the sources to use and cite.
Why would they suggest and tell you how to “cheat” the system? If you’re not smart enough to realize Wikipedia isn’t a source itself, you are exactly why this lesson needs to be done lmfao.
Wiki would be like asking the librarian what the book is about, then using them as the source, you realize how silly this sounds now yeah?
Ok, fine. I’m not critiquing their directive. Just saying what it was at the time. Ergo, I’m not making the news, just reporting it.
It’s STILL like that. I’m sorry for explaining why they specifically do something.
You wouldn’t use the librarian as a source, but all the books she told you about can be listed. Then write what they said and see if they notice.
Same situation, different era.
The point is that Wikipedia (in theory) doesn’t make any argument about anything. It simply mirrors or summarizes information. Using Wikipedia as a source is somewhat similar to listing “the notes I made during class” as your source. Your source list is not meant to simply list where you got the information from, but actually list the origin of that information.
Citing ChatGPT would definitely not be more accepted than Wikipedia anywhere. You may get away with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually accepted.
I guess it should be accepted in the sense that “my neighbour Bob” is a completely valid source, while at the same time being an utterly unreliable one.
People often confuse the two, but I think GPT falls in the same category as “pulled it out of my ass” in terms of reliability and citation validity.