Importance of Citing or Acknowledging AI
We Need to Understand Why We Reference
The Increasing Volume of Arguments Against Acknowledging AI Use
Multiple voices in the world of AI in education and the workplace have been speaking out against citations of AI tools and conversations because they are not independent originators of thoughts or ideas. They advocate against acknowledging AI tools because that does not offer clarification or important information to the reader.
Arguments against citations range from the “requiring citation of AI tools is an excuse for discrimination against users of new tech” to “AI preparation should be considered normal and therefore not acknowledged,” to “AI tools are more like editors or librarians, and you would not cite librarians.”
Look at this insightful post by Tim Dasey, Ph.D. that raises the third argument. Let me say that I have respect for Dr. Dasey and his work. I agree with most things he has to say (and his argument in this post is well thought-out).
Human-Created Designation?
Some professionals, particularly in the education field, support the idea of “human-created material” badges or designations. They note the differences between human cognition and the machinations of computer networks.
This is definitely a good practice, but is there a way to enforce this or verify? These badges or "designations" are placed by humans and creators, which means we have to take their word for it.
Furthermore, this seems to be establishing a dichotomy of "completely human" vs. ostensibly "completely AI” content. There is a much broader spectrum of AI involvement, and creating labels for all of these uses seems futile. There are multiple actors (groups as well as individuals) who are trying to distinguish the major stages of this spectrum. However, there is no standardization among these systems (and no standardization about implementing the use of these badges).
I would prefer that people be transparent with citing any interactions with AI tools in a format that is as transparent and thorough as possible. The extent of AI mimicry can be determined by clicking on the links in the citations and comparing it to the final product.
Why Do We Cite?
This is a question that I eventually included in all presentations where I discuss citing and acknowledging AI tools.
Citation in general is not meant to declare that a person is human. These citations are meant to declare where our creations’ ideas originated. In some styles, the section of the paper that includes citations is called “References.” In others, it is referred to as “Acknowledgment.” In no way does citation of an AI conversation imply that the AI tool is a human. It simply states how we came up with ideas and/or other aspects of our creations. It is part of due diligence and professionalism.
I agree with what the second and third arguments in the first section are trying to say, but a librarian would encourage any writer to acknowledge when they use AI. While this is commonly done in a "citation" form, it is really an acknowledgment of having USED AI tools rather than "citing" it as a reliable source. A generative AI tool is not primary source, but it could be cited as a secondary source (although its credibility would be questionable).
Additionally, using AI as part of the formative process doesn't mean that the words are used verbatim, just that the author is acknowledging what the AI produced. It's not about plugging AI, it's about being transparent about what tools you use. A generative AI tool is not a primary source. It is not even a good secondary source (although you could use it, but its credibility would be questionable). However, it can be cited to acknowledge its use in repackaging your ideas.
My Personal Citation Style
There is no set standard for citing AI tools. Even official suggestions by APA, MLA, and Chicago are just suggestions because of the constantly-changing perceptions of the nature of generative AI. No matter what standard you use to cite content generated by AI tools, know the AI use and citation policy for the school, class, and/or publication for which you are writing.
The ideal citation in any style should include:
Tool name and version (e.g., ChatGPT 3.5)
Time and date of usage
Prompt, query, or conversation title
Name of person who queried
Ways to save conversation records include:
Wayback Machine
AI Archives (not recommended)
ChatGPT or Copilot chat links (for text chats only)
While the APA has formulated its version of citing content generated by artificial intelligence, this style pales in comparison to the citation styles it recommends for other information sources.
Therefore, I created my own version of citation based on the APA citation:
Last, F. and OpenAI, (2023). "[Chat title]", conversation with [tool name] [Large Language/Image Model] ([version information]). Generated on [date]. [shareable link to the chat, if possible].
For example, I would put:
Hepler, R., and OpenAI. (2023). "Balrogs might have wings", online conversation with ChatGPT [Large Language Model] (August 3 Version). Generated on August 22, 2023. https://chat.openai.com/share/15d75e9f-16d3-4ebf-81b8-f675528ed267Links to an external site..
The MLA analogue would be:
Hepler, R. and OpenAI. "Balrogs Might Have Wings." Conversation with ChatGPT. August 3 Version, 22 Aug. 2023, chat.openai.com/share/15d75e9f-16d3-4ebf-81b8-f675528ed267.
Why Would You Include Your Own Name?
You will notice that in this citation style, I cite the user’s name. This may seem strange because the AI tool seems to be the primary content creator. However, this is only true if the user is only superficially examining the content of the AI tool, copying and pasting without using information literacy skills.
Including your own name in the citation assigns you some responsibility for the AI-generated content you use. An author or creator of a cited work is regarded as the originator of the ideas in that work. If you include your own name in the citation, you are stating that you were the originator of the ideas communicated in the conversation or interaction with an AI tool. In other words, you had better act like an author rather than simply copying and pasting.
Discussion
I discuss my argument for citations and/or acknowledgment, and this style, in a presentation for the Library 2.0 AI and Libraries II Mini-Conference. The video starts at 15 minutes, and the section on Copyright is three minutes long.
A Sample from Past Work
This sample, in fact, comes from the first ever post in this blog. I utilized the citation/acknowledgment style that I support so that I could demonstrate what I was talking about:
“You will see just below this paragraph that I include myself as an author in the chat reference. This is because I believe that I am an author. As I tell my attendees and fellow educators, “if you cite yourself as an author of a conversation with an AI tool, you had better act like one.” As Ethan Mollick suggests in his book Co-Intelligence and his Substack One Useful Thing, this is the essence of collaboration: partnering with the AI tool at the most, treating it like an assistant at the least. It is not a hammer, and you are not meant to function like a copy machine. Both you and the AI have significant contributions, but you are the one who determines how effectively those contributions are acknowledged and leveraged.
References
Hepler, R., and OpenAI “Writing Style Analysis,” conversation with GPT-4o [Large Language Model] on May 21, 2024. https://chatgpt.com/share/14b63c5b-b677-47d1-b4b5-d84cfca267cc.
Conclusion
While I feel that citing AI tools is an important aspect of my work and my creative process, I do not think that it should be required. Everyone has the right to communicate and use technology however they want. However, I do think that acknowledging (or citing) creative tools we use should be part of best practices. This is not because they are on par with humans. On the contrary, it is because they are becoming collaborators (hence the name of this blog) with us in the creative process despite not being human.
As Tim Dasey says in his post, “in terms of saying whether AI use used at all, the human should take responsibility for all of it, regardless who wrote it.” In my mind, citing or acknowledging AI is taking responsibility. But that’s just one person’s opinion.