Claim · 2023-03-15 · event · Stated in source · Supported

The GPT-4 Technical Report (2023) cites OpenAI's "Introducing ChatGPT" (2022, openai.com/blog/chatgpt) and reports evaluating GPT-4 on prompts submitted to ChatGPT.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

GPT-4 Technical Report → cites → Introducing ChatGPT

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

GPT-4 Technical Reportcites ↓Introducing ChatGPT

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2023-03-15 · event Records dated 2023 →

Scope and limitsDates the ChatGPT announcement only as claimed in a later citation (2022; November 2022 in the system card reference). The announcement and the service's release date were not retrieved.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

GPT-4 Technical Report

arXiv · 2023-03-15

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“[58] OpenAI. OpenAI: Introducing ChatGPT, 2022. URL https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt.”

Location in source PDF p. 21, references, entry [58]

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: OpenAI
Version: arXiv:2303.08774v1, submitted 15 March 2023 (UTC). Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 053056a10114d22e4c47b6b5be25e54c320b5f1beeae7466e8638dac0f5f5f66). The first page prints the collective byline “OpenAI”; contributors listed elsewhere in the text are not recorded as authors.
Version date: 2023-03-15
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-28
Language: English (en)
Attribution: OpenAI, “GPT-4 Technical Report”, 2023-03-15.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, Kinds of AI and technical history (research/technical-history). The quotation (8 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

GPT-4 Technical Report

arXiv · 2023-03-15

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“On a dataset of 5,214 prompts submitted to ChatGPT [58] and the OpenAI API [41], the responses generated by GPT-4 were preferred over the responses generated by GPT-3.5 on 70.2% of prompts.”

Location in source PDF p. 7, section 4

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: OpenAI
Version: arXiv:2303.08774v1, submitted 15 March 2023 (UTC). Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 053056a10114d22e4c47b6b5be25e54c320b5f1beeae7466e8638dac0f5f5f66). The first page prints the collective byline “OpenAI”; contributors listed elsewhere in the text are not recorded as authors.
Version date: 2023-03-15
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-28
Language: English (en)
Attribution: OpenAI, “GPT-4 Technical Report”, 2023-03-15.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, Kinds of AI and technical history (research/technical-history). The quotation (32 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.

Date. Date of submission (an arXiv version or a journal’s received date, as the source states it); not a later revision or the venue’s publication date.

Record ID th-tl-gpt4-cites-chatgpt