Als nächstesNächster Leitfaden
KI-Richtlinienerklärungen für Lehrpläne
Gesellschaft
Gesellschaftsführer
APA cites AI output with the company as author and the model as the title, for example OpenAI.
(2023). ChatGPT [Large language model]. MLA does not treat the AI as an author and puts a description of your prompt in the title position. Chicago prefers a footnote and usually no bibliography entry. Citing matters because readers can't open your chat, so the citation has to tell them which tool you used and what you asked it.
All three major styles published guidance on generative AI in 2023. They differ mainly on who or what counts as the author. APA (guidance posted on the APA Style blog in April 2023) treats the company that built the model as the author. A reference looks like this: OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat. The in-text citation is (OpenAI, 2023). APA asks writers to describe the prompt in the text. For long responses, it suggests putting the full exchange in an appendix so readers can see what the model produced. MLA (guidance published in March 2023) says not to treat the AI as an author. The title slot gets a description of what was generated, usually the prompt in quotation marks. After that come the tool as the container, its version, the publisher, the date the content was generated, and the location. The in-text citation uses a shortened form of that title. MLA also asks writers to acknowledge non-quoted uses, such as editing help, in a note or in the text. Chicago generally cites AI output in a note. For example: 1. ChatGPT, response to "Explain how to make pizza dough from common household ingredients," OpenAI, March 7, 2023. If the prompt is already given in your text, the note can be shorter. Chicago usually leaves AI output out of the bibliography because readers can't retrieve the conversation, treating it much like a personal communication. A publicly shareable link may change that. A common misconception is that citing an AI makes its claims reliable. It doesn't. If ChatGPT describes a study, find the study and cite that instead. Another is that the style guide decides whether you can use AI at all. Your instructor's or publisher's policy decides that first.
Sowohl katastrophale als auch alltägliche Schäden durch KI hängen davon ab, wer die Risiken versteht und wer handeln kann.
Die öffentliche und berufliche Bildung bestimmt, ob eine starke Sicherheitspolitik politisch möglich ist.
Klare Erklärungen reduzieren die Vereinnahmung durch Hype, Labor-PR und vages Ethik-Theater.
Citation rules for AI will keep changing as the tools do. Open questions include how to cite outputs that combine several models, outputs based on live web searches, and AI features built into ordinary software like word processors. Share links and exportable transcripts may make AI output easier to retrieve, which could move styles such as Chicago toward fuller reference entries. Expect the three style guides to update their examples rather than change their basic logic.
A psychology student writes: When prompted with "Is the left-brain/right-brain divide real?" ChatGPT said the idea is largely a myth (OpenAI, 2023). The reference list then includes the OpenAI entry with the model version and URL.
An English student quotes an AI summary of a poem. In the Works Cited, the entry starts with the prompt in quotation marks, followed by ChatGPT, the version, OpenAI, the date it was generated, and the URL.
A history student adds a footnote: 1. Text generated by ChatGPT, OpenAI, March 7, 2023, https://chat.openai.com/chat. Following Chicago's usual advice, there is no bibliography entry.
A student used AI only to brainstorm and did not quote or paraphrase it. Following the course policy, they add a short disclosure note instead of a formal citation.
Das existentielle Risiko wird als Science-Fiction behandelt, während sich die Fähigkeiten verstärken.
Verwechslung von Oberflächenproduktsicherheit mit Ausrichtung unter hoher Autonomie.
Nicht-englischsprachigen und nicht fachkundigen Zielgruppen stehen nur Quellen von geringer Qualität zur Verfügung.
Separate Risiken für Produktschäden, Missbrauch und Kontrollverlust/Fehlausrichtung.
Fragen Sie, welche Beweise Ihre Sicht auf Zeitpläne und Schweregrad ändern würden.
Bevorzugen Sie Primärquellen und konkrete Bewertungen gegenüber Marketingaussagen.
Identifizieren Sie einen Aktionspfad: Karriere, Politik, Finanzierung oder Fähigkeiten – nicht nur Bewusstsein.
Free newsletter
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
APA cites AI output with the company as author and the model as the title, for example OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT [Large language model]. MLA does not treat the AI as an author and puts a description of your prompt in the title position. Chicago prefers a footnote and usually no bibliography entry. Citing matters because readers can't open your chat, so the citation has to tell them which tool you used and what you asked it.
APA treats the company that built the model as the author, as in OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT [Large language model].
MLA does not treat AI as an author. It uses a description of the generated content, usually the prompt in quotation marks, as the title.
Chicago generally cites AI output in a footnote or endnote and usually leaves it out of the bibliography.
Because the conversation usually can't be retrieved, Chicago treats it much like a personal communication. A public link may change that.
APA suggests putting long exchanges in an appendix so readers can see exactly what the model produced.
Lerne weiter
Weitere Leitfäden zu diesem Thema ausgewählt
Als nächstesNächster Leitfaden
KI-Richtlinienerklärungen für Lehrpläne
Gesellschaft