Science fact vs science fiction: A ChatGPT immunological review experiment gone awry.

• Chatbots could save time, increase efficiency and reduce the workload of scientists. • ChatGPT could be helpful in preparing scientific immunological manuscripts. • ChatGPT answers to basic scientific questions sound polished and convincing. • In-depth scientific questions usually provide wrong answers and wrong citations. • Special training is required if chatbots are to be used as scientific support. Artificial intelligence (AI) has made great progress in recent years. The latest chatbot to make a splash is ChatGPT. To see if this type of AI could also be helpful in creating an immunological review article, I put a planned review on different classes of small RNAs during murine B cell development to the test. Although the general wording sounded very polished and convincing, ChatGPT encountered great difficulties when asked for details and references and made many incorrect statements, leading me to conclude that this kind of AI is not (yet?) suitable for assisting in the writing of scientific articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]