What has been missing from the open-source availability of ChatGPT-type artificial intelligence on the Internet? What is missing in order to make it possible to comply with the norms of text publishing law, tax law, copyright law, property law, intellectual value law, to make it fully ethical, practical and effective, and to make it safe and not generate misinformation for Internet users to use this type of technology?

How should an automated system for verifying the authorship of texts and other works be structured and made openly available on the Internet in order to verify whether phrases, fragments of text, phrases, wording, etc. are present in a specific text submitted to the editors of journals or publishers of books and other text-based publications? If so, to what extent and from which source texts did the artificial intelligence extract specific phrases, fragments of text, thus giving a detailed description of the source texts, providing footnotes to sources, bibliographic descriptions of sources, etc., i.e. also as is done by efficient and effective computerised anti-plagiarism systems?

The recent appeal by the creators of ChatGPT-type artificial intelligence technology, the appeal by businessmen and founders and co-founders of start-ups developing artificial intelligence technology about the need to halt the development of this type of technology for at least six months confirms the thesis that something was not thought of when OpenAI made ChatGPT openly available on the Internet, that something was forgotten, that something was missing from the openly available ChatGPT-type artificial intelligence system on the Internet. I have already written about the issue of the potential massive generation of disinformation in my earlier posts and comments on previously formulated questions about ChatGPT technology and posted on my discussion profile of this Research Gate portal. On the other hand, to the issue of information security, the potential development of disinformation in the public space of the Internet, we should also add the issue of the lack of a structured system for the digital marking of "works" created by artificial intelligence, including texts, publications, photographs, films, innovative solutions, patents, artistic works, etc., in order to ensure the security of information. In this regard, it is also necessary to improve the systems for verifying the authorship of texts sent to journal editors, so as to verify that the text has been written in full compliance with copyright law, intellectual property law, the rules of ethics and good journalistic practice, the rules for writing texts as works of intellectual value, the rules for writing and publishing professional, popular science, scientific and other articles. It is necessary to improve the processes of verifying the authorship of texts sent to the editorial offices of magazines and publishing houses of various text publications, including the improvement of the system of text verification by editors and reviewers working in the editorial offices of popular-scientific, trade, scientific, daily and monthly magazines, etc., by creating for their needs anti-plagiarism systems equipped with text analysis algorithms in order to identify which fragments of text, phrases, paragraphs were created not by a human but by an artificial intelligence of the ChatGPT type, and whose authorship these fragments are. An improved anti-plagiarism system of this kind should also include tools for the precise identification of text fragments, phrases, statements, theses, etc. of other authors, i.e. providing full information in the form of bibliographic descriptions of source publications, providing footnotes to sources. An anti-plagiarism system improved in this way should, like ChatGPT, be made available to Internet users in an open access format. In addition, it remains to be seen whether it is also necessary to legally oblige editors of journals and publishers of various types of textual and other publications to use this kind of anti-plagiarism system in verifying the authorship of texts. Arguably, the editors of journals and publishers of books and other types of textual publications will be interested in doing so in order to apply this kind of automated verification system for the resulting publication works. At the very least, those editors of journals and publishers of books and other types of textual publications that recognise themselves and are recognised as reputable will be interested in using this kind of improved system to verify the authorship of texts sent to the editors. Another issue is the identification of technological determinants, including the type of technologies with which it will be possible to appropriately improve the automated verification system for the aforementioned issue of text authorship. Paradoxically, here again, the technology of artificial intelligence comes into play, which can and should prove to be of great help in the aforementioned issue of verification of the aforementioned question of authorship of texts and other works.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

How should an automated and open-access online system for verifying the authorship of texts and other works be structured in order to verify whether phrases, text fragments, phrases, wordings, etc. are present in a specific text sent to the editors of journals or publishers of books and other textual publications? If YES, to what extent and from which source texts did the artificial intelligence retrieve specific phrases, fragments of text, thus giving detailed characteristics of the source texts, providing footnotes to sources, bibliographic descriptions of sources, etc., i.e. also as implemented by efficient and effective computerised anti-plagiarism systems?

What was missing from making a ChatGPT-type artificial intelligence system available on the Internet in an open access format? What is missing in order to make it possible to comply with the norms of text publishing law, tax law, copyright law, property law, intellectual property law, to make it fully ethical, practical and effective, and to make it safe and not generate disinformation for Internet users to use this type of technology?

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz