[chongli]

With humans we can demand that people cite their sources. If they fail to do this, they run the risk of being accused of plagiarism. ChatGPT, on the other hand, plagiarizes all day long and never cites sources. That is why it's an issue.

And as for whether ChatGPT has an agenda or not, that is beside the point. People can and do use it as a tool for plagiarism while trying to hide behind a layer of plausible deniability provided by the "black box" of the model. This cannot be allowed to continue. This is why we need to push back, just as the GP is doing.

[jtxt]

We can help it look for and use sources.

I've had it generate search terms that could be used to verify "facts" in is answer. Then I'd give it the page results and have it adjust and source it's answer using that.

Have not tried it yet, but perhaps Bing's implementation is a step in that direction?

[mynameisvlad]

I mean, sure, you can demand it. And people are just going to make up sources. It’s not like they have a gun held up to their head to ensure that demand is followed.

> People can and do use it as a tool for plagiarism while trying to hide behind a layer of plausible deniability provided by the "black box" of the model. This cannot be allowed to continue. This is why we need to push back, just as the GP is doing.

This is absolutely preposterous. People are going to lie and plagiarize whether they have a chat bot do it for them or not. The existence of a chat bot isn’t going to be the make or break in this equation and if anything, the people using it for that purpose should be rightfully vilified rather than the tool.

[gattilorenz]

> People are going to lie and plagiarize whether they have a chat bot do it for them or not.

The difference is, with a chatbot it might not even be a conscious act, the chatbot is doing it for you and you're not aware that it's happening.

[unyttigfjelltol]

> And people are just going to make up sources. It’s not like they have a gun held up to their head to ensure that demand is followed.

The consequences actually are quite serious. A person falsifies work product once in an academic or professional setting and their career is severely impacted. This is why people are "surprised" to encounter such a BS generator operating under the trademark of a reputable company.

[mynameisvlad]

It’s not the tool that’s at fault in that case, it’s the person doing that falsification. The person would have faked their sources and made shit up without ChatGPT there.

It’s almost as if you ignored everything I said, cherry-picked a random part, then went on a tangent about a different part of my comment. All without actually comprehending what the things you replied to said.