I’m working on a research paper and used information from ChatGPT, but I’m not sure how to properly cite it in MLA style. I want to make sure I follow the correct format so I won’t lose points. Can anyone explain how to do this or share an example citation?
MLA’s had to catch up with AI fast, but they do have guidance for this! Basically, you cite ChatGPT as a personal communication since it’s an indirect source—not something you can retrieve again with the same results. So, in your Works Cited, it should look something like:
ChatGPT. “Prompt you entered.” OpenAI, 3 June 2024, chat.openai.com/chat.
Replace “Prompt you entered” with what you actually asked, and update the date to when you got the response. Some instructors also want you to describe what kind of tool it is (like “ChatGPT, language model”). In-text, MLA suggests you refer to the AI’s input like: (ChatGPT).
But heads up: always check your professor’s rules, some aren’t cool with AI sources, and some want extra context in your Methods or Notes. Better to overshare your process than get flagged for “hiding” a source. Hope this saves you a headache!
Wow, the ChatGPT/MLA thing is the new wild west. @viaggiatoresolare already dropped the “personal communication” citation, but honestly, there’s a growing debate around whether that fully covers your academic you-know-what. Some MLA sticklers are saying because ChatGPT is a constantly updating web tool, you might instead treat it like a digital source (think: like a tweet, oddly enough) and lean into full transparency—actual prompt, tool description, retrieval date, and so on. Here’s what some instructors are pushing for lately (source: my latest tuition bill and an over-caffeinated librarian):
Works Cited Entry Example:
ChatGPT. Response to “Explain the causes of the Dust Bowl.” OpenAI, 5 June 2024, https://chat.openai.com/.
Notice two little things:
- Some want you to clarify that what you’re quoting is a bot response—not a person.
- The URL is technically not “retrievable” because you can’t get the exact reply again, but just the base URL.
In-Text Citation: (ChatGPT)
But here’s the rub: MLA’s official guidance is still in flux, different schools and journals call for wildly different formats, and some profs want you to toss it in a footnote instead. Trust me, half the time you’ll just end up with “See my Methods section for full prompt and chatbot explanation.”
And straight-up: some professors are old-school and will straight up dock points for any AI, or ask you to explicitly justify your use of it. If you don’t want an “academic integrity” email, fill them in on how you used it—like, were you just paraphrasing, or was it direct text? (Old grad school trauma moment: overshare in your footnotes, always.)
Basically, MLA is catching up and the internet’s moving faster than their official handbook, so when in doubt cite it like a peculiar digital conversation, and always spell out your process in the Methodology or an early Note. It sounds ridiculous, but over-explain. Your GPA will thank you.
Alright fellow paper warriors, let’s cut through the MLA/ChatGPT fog with a quick-fire FAQ-style rundown and a sprinkle of friendly perspective—not just another restatement of what you’ve heard.
Do you HAVE to cite ChatGPT?
Yes, unless your prof/specifically bans it (some do, check your syllabus!), this is a unique digital source, not general knowledge.
What’s the kicker with MLA and AI?
MLA’s adapting, but honestly, even their recent advice is playing catchup. @espritlibre and @viaggiatoresolare make solid points: treat ChatGPT like a cross between personal communication and a web source. But, here’s my twist: for max clarity (and grade security), combine both models. Be OVERLY descriptive about how you used it.
What should your Works Cited look like?
Don’t just paste in a generic format. Actually show what distinguishes your use:
- Tool description: e.g., “ChatGPT, language model AI”
- Your full prompt (especially if it clarifies your research question)
- Date of interaction
- URL: Only the root URL—not the convo, ‘cause that’s not recoverable.
For example:
ChatGPT. Response to “What factors led to…?” OpenAI, 6 June 2024, chat.openai.com.
PROS & CONS of treating AI this way:
Pros:
- Maximum transparency: covers you if your prof asks, “how did you get this info?”
- You’re ahead of the curve as MLA evolves.
- Great for readers/future researchers who want to trace your thinking.
Cons:
- The more info you cram in, the clunkier your Works Cited looks.
- Some graders might think it’s overkill.
- Just citing the homepage isn’t helpful for “fact-checking” purposes.
Fun fact: Some of my classmates list the AI output (or summaries) in their Methodology, not just in the Works Cited. Adds context and looks super professional.
Comparing takes:
@espritlibre is more in the “personal communication” camp; @viaggiatoresolare leans digital source, Twitter-esque. Both approaches are fine, but whichever you choose, detail your usage somewhere—footnote, methodology, or appendix. My two cents? Over-explain until your word count aches.
Last tip: MLA moves slow, tech moves fast. Until there’s consensus, be transparent, clear, and ready to show your source trail. Your grades will thank you!
Biggest competitor for clarity still seems to be APA—if your field allows it, sometimes APA’s AI-citation rules are less murky. But stick to MLA rules for your humanities paper for now, and sleep easy knowing you cited ChatGPT like a boss.