The analogy

Citing a source is like pointing to which library shelf you took a book from: it matters so that the reader can go back to the same shelf and verify. With AI the shelf is unstable. The "book" is not fixed: the same question, asked tomorrow, may give a different answer. That is why citing an AI must record not only where you went, but what you asked and when, because that precise result might no longer exist.

The citation, here, is not about giving credit to an author (the AI is not an author). It serves to make your path traceable. It is a stamp of transparency: "I didn't produce this piece on my own, here is how it came about".

How it really works

First rule: ask your institution

Universities and newsrooms are still writing their rules on the use of AI, and they vary widely. Some ban it, others allow it if declared, others only for certain stages of the work. A correct, formal citation does not save you if the use was not permitted. So the first step is not to cite: it is to verify what is allowed in your context.

The three main styles

When use is permitted, each style has its own form. The recurring elements are always the same: who (the company), when (the date), what (the prompt or a description of the answer), where (the address of the service).

In APA style, the author is the company, followed by the year, a description of the answer, and the address of the tool; in the text you refer back with author and year. In MLA style, the bibliography entry starts from the prompt in quotation marks, then the name of the tool, the version date, the company, the date of the answer, and the generic address. In Chicago style, you typically use a footnote that reports the company, the description of the answer to the prompt, the date, and the address.

The operational syntax to ask the AI to prepare the entry in the right style:

Generate the citation for this conversation in APA seventh edition style.
Treat the company that provides the tool as the author, today's date as the date,
and this description as the content: "[write here what you asked]".
Also indicate the in-text version to use in the body of the text.

Always check the result against the official style guide: the AI can get its own citation wrong.

What makes a citation valid

An AI citation is only useful if it makes the use reconstructible. Keep the exact prompt and the date. If the answer is long or decisive, save a copy (a screenshot or the chat export): the address of the service leads to the tool, not to the specific answer, which the reader cannot retrieve.

What you can do in practice

  • Decide what needs to be cited. You cite AI when it contributed substantially: it generated text, shaped an idea, provided an analysis. A grammar correction usually is not cited; a whole paragraph is.
  • Save the prompt and the date as you go. Don't reconstruct them from memory afterward. Keep a file where you paste prompt, date, and an excerpt of the answer as you use them.
  • Archive the decisive answers. Export the conversation or take a screenshot. It is your proof that the result existed.
  • Distinguish citation from a statement of method. Beyond individual citations, many theses require a general statement ("I used tool X for stage Y"). These are two different things: often you need both.
  • If you can't find the button or the entry, ask directly in the conversation: "Act as a librarian expert in citations and generate the bibliographic entry for me in the required style". The approach works even when the interface changes.

A common misconception

"If I cite the AI, I've shown I'm transparent and covered every risk." The citation is necessary but not enough. The real point is whether the use was permitted and whether the content is correct. A thesis that cites the AI perfectly but used it where it was forbidden is still a violation of the rules. And a citation does not guarantee that what the AI wrote is true: the facts must be verified separately, with real sources.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to cite the AI even if I only used it to fix the grammar?

Generally no: a light linguistic touch-up is like using the spellchecker, you don't cite it. You cite when the AI contributes to the content or the ideas. When in doubt, declare the use in the method note: transparency costs nothing.

Can I list the AI as a co-author?

No. Styles and publishers do not recognize AI as an author, because an author must be able to answer for their own work and the AI cannot. You cite it as a tool or a source, never on the authors' line.

Does citing the AI make my work look less serious?

It's the opposite. Hiding the use and getting caught destroys credibility; declaring it methodically reinforces it. The seriousness of a thesis is not measured by the absence of tools, but by honesty about how they were used and by the verification of the facts.