SıradakiSonraki rehber
Kurs Müfredatı için Yapay Zeka Politikası Beyanları
Toplum
Toplum REHBERİ
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.
Yıkıcı ve günlük yapay zeka zararları, kimin riskleri anladığı ve kimin harekete geçebileceğine bağlıdır.
Kamu ve profesyonel okuryazarlık, güçlü bir güvenlik politikasının politik olarak mümkün olup olmadığını şekillendirir.
Açık açıklamalar abartılı reklamların, laboratuvar halkla ilişkiler uygulamalarının ve belirsiz etik tiyatrosunun etkisi altına girmeyi azaltır.
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.
Yetenekleri artırırken varoluşsal riski bilim kurgu olarak ele almak.
Yüzey ürün güvenliğini yüksek özerklik altında hizalamayla karıştırmak.
İngilizce olmayan ve uzman olmayan izleyici kitlesini yalnızca düşük kaliteli kaynaklarla bırakmak.
Ürün zararları, yanlış kullanım ve kontrol kaybı/yanlış hizalama risklerini ayırın.
Hangi kanıtların zaman çizelgeleri ve ciddiyet konusundaki görüşünüzü değiştireceğini sorun.
Pazarlama iddiaları yerine birincil kaynakları ve somut değerlendirmeleri tercih edin.
Tek bir eylem yolu belirleyin: kariyer, politika, finansman veya beceriler; yalnızca farkındalık değil.
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.
Öğrenmeye devam et
Bu konu için daha fazla rehber seçildi
SıradakiSonraki rehber
Kurs Müfredatı için Yapay Zeka Politikası Beyanları
Toplum