[Brian_K_White]

Depending on how exactly you mean use, I would not say so, because chatgpt cannot actually summarize anything.

In this case it may be ok because we may assume the author looked over the result and agrees with it. They could remove the citation as far as I'm concerned, the same way they don't have to cite their spell checker.

But a summary is a distillation of an understanding.

chatgpt does not understand anything, it is merely pattern-matching against and recomposing other texts.

The only reason the result is even half way sensible is because as of today, most other text that it is matching against and recomposing was written by people who did understand what they were writing and writing about.

So I would perhaps agree that a person using it as part of the process of their own writing is a good use case. But I would not agree that chatgpt can summarize things, and would not say that letting it do the entire job of interpreting and restating is a good use case.

[65536b]

You claim that ChatGPT cannot understand anything because it merely pattern matches. Humans are basically pattern matching machines, we are just currently better than our computer counterparts. Do humans understand anything? I find this debate over whenever a computer can understand anything rather pointless. If something can produce useful output I don't care if it 'actually understands' anything.

[Brian_K_White]

You are equating or confusing appearance with essense.

An mp3 player that says "hello" is not greeting you, and you are not merely playing a recording of the sound "hello" at your neighbor.

A person can do many of the same outward actions as a machine. A machine can be made that carries rocks. You can also carry rocks. This does not make you really no different from a truck.

So a person can pattern-match, and write formulaically.

[IanCal]

> chatgpt does not understand anything, it is merely pattern-matching against and recomposing other texts.

Research looking at a GPT model trained to play othello showed it had a model of the board state rather than simply pattern matching moves. You're confusing the training of a model with the operation of a model.