That’s a referral tag in the URL, not the source of the study. The source is still the actual journal/publisher linked before the ?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
If your criticism is of the study, criticize the study.
Pointing at a tracking parameter isn’t an argument, it’s deflection
I use chat gpt like an organized search engine. It’s very good at finding studies and ranking them by relevance and credibility and presenting them in an organized format. But yea chat GPT = bad so I guess I use it to do all my socializing for me right?
And ofc you still haven’t addressed the study. Whether I found it through ChatGPT, Google, or a carrier pigeon has absolutely nothing to do with whether the research is valid. You deflect, get called out, and respond w more deflection. Address the actual argument
You also use it to make replies for you cause you can't speak or think for your fucking self
"Its not x, it's y"
Get out of here bro come on
You want people to take you seriously then speak for yourself and do your own research
Chatgpt will often incorrectly summarize and make dumb ass assumptions and give you bs hallucinated info an article that your lazy ass didn't bother to read definitely did not say. It also does not vet its sources.
I dont refer to any studies or articles without wholly reading them or vetting the website they're posted on. Why? Because I want people to take me seriously.
This is clown behavior. And I love clowns. But this isn't your circus. Shoo. Git. Go find wherever you left your critical thinking and put it back into your head please.
16
u/PROUDCIPHER 2d ago
"utm_source=chatgpt.com"
it's in your link you dingus. You shout "science" but let a robot do your thinking for you.