[hashmush]

As much as I'm also annoyed by that phrase, is it really any different from:

- I had to Google it...

- According to a StackOverflow answer...

- Person X told me about this nice trick...

- etc.

Stating your sources should surely not be a bad thing, no?

[mentalpiracy]

It is not about stating a source, the bad thing is treating chatGPT as an authoritative source like it is a subject matter expert.

[silversmith]

But is "I asked chatgpt" assigning any authority to it? I use precisely that sentence as a shorthand for "I didn't know, looked it up in the most convenient way, and it sounded plausible enough to pass on".

[stonemetal12]

In general those point to the person's understanding being shallow. So far when someone says "GPT said..." it is a new low in understanding, and there is no more to the article they googled or second stackOverflow answer with a different take on it, it is the end of the conversation.

[spiffyk]

Well, it is not, but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT.

[bloppe]

SO at least has reputation scores and people vote on answers. An answer with 5000 upvotes, written by someone with high karma, is probably legit.

[gruez]

>but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone lambasted for citing stackoverflow as a source. At best, they chastised for not reading the comments, but nowhere as much pushback as for LLMs.

[dpoloncsak]

...isn't that exactly why someone states that?

"Hey, I didn't study this, I found it on Google. Take it with a grain of caution, as it came from the internet" has been shortened to "I googled it and...", which is now evolving to "Hey, I asked chatGPT, and...."

[rhizome]

All three of those should be followed by "...and I checked it to see if it was a sufficient solution to X..." or words to that effect.

[billyoneal]

The complaint isn't about stating the source. The complaint is about asking for advice, then ignoring that advice. If one asks how to do something, get a reply, then reply to that reply 'but Google says', that's just as rude.

[kimixa]

It's a "source" that cannot be reproduced or actually referenced in any way.

And all the other examples will have a chain of "upstream" references, data and discussion.

I suppose you can use those same phrases to reference things without that, random "summaries" without references or research, "expert opinion" from someone without any experience in that sector, opinion pieces from similarly reputation-less people etc. but I'd say they're equally worthless as references as "According to GPT...", and should be treated similarly.

[hx8]

It depends on if they are just repeating things without understanding, or if they have understanding. My issue is that people that say "I asked gpt" is that they often do not have any understanding themselves.

Copy and pasting from ChatGPT has the same consequences as copying and pasting from StackOverflow, which is to say you're now on the hook supporting code in production that you don't understand.

[tough]

We cannot blame the tools for how they are used by those yielding them.

I can use ChatGPT to teach me and understand a topic or i can use it to give me an answer and not double check and just copy paste.

Just shows off how much you care about the topic at hand, no?

[nraynaud]

the first 2 bullet points give you an array of answers/comments helping you cross check (also I'm a freak, and even on SO, I generally click on the posted documentation links).