Discussion

Commentary

Artificial Intelligence,Chatbots,PlagiarismandBasicHonesty:Comment

AMNUAY KLEEBAYOON
1 and VIROJ WIWANITKIT

2,3

1Samraong, Cambodia; 2Joseph Ayobabalola University, Ikeji-Arakeji, Nigeria; and 3Chandigarh University, Punjab, India

(Received 25 January 2023; accepted 7 February 2023; published online 17 February 2023)

Associate Editor Michael R. King oversaw the review of this article.

Dear Editor,
We read the publication by King and ChatGPT with

great interest. According toKing andChatGPT, AI and
chatbots are used in a wide range of industries, from
customer service to healthcare, and are evolving as
technology advances.1 There are various examples of
how to cheat usingAI that students or practitionersmay
use as a deceptive method of creating amisconduct. The
first question is whether this is a ‘‘plagiarism’’ by defi-
nition. Historically, plagiarism was defined as (a) steal-
ing for a part orwhole, (b)with orwithout intent, and (c)
an attempt to disguise and declare that it is a creative
work of a plagiarist.2 Using AI to create a piece of work
can accommodate almost all of the previously men-
tioned factors.However, one could argue thatAI is not a
human and is merely a tool, and thus it may or may not
be considered plagiarism. Using technology, on the
other hand, is not a sin. For our researchers, we now use
a variety of technologies. Some graphs are printed from
the tools, and the printed graph can be used without
being considered plagiarized work in general.

In the case of using AI to generate a response to a
conversation, it could be considered plagiarism. First, as
mentioned by King and ChatGPT, if the user declares
that it is a response generated by AI, this may not be
unethical. However, most plagiarists have a dishonest
background. He/she will usually conceal the fact and
claim that he/she did it. In our experience, some students
in postgraduate studies are more senior and have the
other students do the presentation for them while claim-
ing that itwas preparedby them.This is unquestionably a
case of misconduct. Using other people’s work is not
permitted in art. An artist also does not repeat his or her

own work, which is equivalent to self-plagiarism. The
same rule should be applied in science.However, inmany
cases, the copy is both ethical and acceptable. For
example, in art, an impressionist show is one in which an
actor copies well-known people and acts like them in
order to entertain the audience. Another example is De-
coupage,which is the use of otherpeople’s artwork tomix
and combine to create a newpiece of art. This is similar to
using a direct quotewith a reference to create a newwork.
By anymeans, the main focus is on the declaration of the
origin of the materials and the method by which the final
work is completed. This is an important rule because
plagiarists usually disguise and intend to blind/disguise
the fact. AI is not a bad thing if used correctly and ethi-
cally. The basic rule should be to use it and declare that it
is used. This is a basic practice in bioinformatics research
in which several computation tools are used for data
analysis. With the advancement of AI technology, we
must educate students and practitioners on how to ethi-
cally use AI to create work. Honesty is a fundamental
principle that should be followed in all aspects of life.
Finally, the authors herebydeclare that the current article
waswritten byususing a variety of computer tools.At the
very least, the automatic spelling check is working while
we are writing this article on our computer.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declared that they have no conflict of
interest.

REFERENCES

1King, M. R., GPT Chat. A conversation on artificial intel-
ligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cell

Address correspondence to Amnuay Kleebayoon, Samraong,

Cambodia. Electronic mail:

Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 2023 (� 2023) pp. 173–174

BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING
SOCIETY

1865-5025/23/0400-0173/0 � 2023 The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Biomedical Engineering Society.

173

Mol. Bioeng. 16(1):1–2, 2023.
5-022-00754-8.
2Wiwanitkit, V. Plagiarism: intention or not? Int. Nurs. Rev.
59(2):15, 2012.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with re-
gard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other part-
ner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this

article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing
agreement and applicable law.

BIOMEDICAL
ENGINEERING
SOCIETY

KLEEBAYOON AND WIWANITKIT174