Response to: Comment on The AI and I: A Collaboration on Competence.

Abstract

We thank the authors for their thoughtful comments on the present and future use of artificial intelligence in surgery.1 As they creatively demonstrated in their letter written by Open AI GPT-3 chatbot (ChatGPT), some AI technology performance has become very difficult to distinguish from human performance. It has even been reported that ChatGPT could likely pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam and the Bar Exam.2 The rapid rise of ChatGPT use has led to debates and uncertainty in numerous fields. For example, some educators are concerned that it will facilitate cheating. Others have embraced it. In an interview with National Public Radio, Dr. Ethan Mollick, Associate Professor of Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, stated that he not only allowed, but even required his students to use ChatGPT to facilitate ideas for class projects. He noted that use of AI is analogous to using a calculator to do math.3 “I think everybody is cheating…So what I’m asking students to do is just be honest with me.” Although the direct applications of ChatGPT to surgical care may be limited in the sense that it cannot perform operations, the impact that ChatGPT and similar technology will have on academic publishing is unknown. Will journals and publishers prohibit ChatGPT from being used? Will they use technology, some of which has already been developed, to identify and “root out” ChatGPT text?4 Conversely, will they take Dr. Mollick’s approach and welcome ChatGPT use and require disclosure? Cheating and plagiarism have always been challenges in academia and publishing. ChatGPT raises new questions about the process and traditional approach to applied intellect. With new technology that can generate high level, authentic appearing writing, publishers and journal editors will need to develop new strategies and standards for what is considered original or novel content. Of note, ChatGPT was not used to write this.