At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics.

At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics.

At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics.

In 2019, two court rulings in China on the issue of copyrightability of AI creations received international attention. It was reported that in Feilin v. Baidu, known as the first AI case, the Beijing Internet Court denied copyright of AI creations, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court acknowledged copyright of AI creations in the Tencent Dreamwriter case. The two cases, however, were quite similar, as they acknowledged copyright of AIassisted, not AI-generated, written works and recognized these works as a work of a legal entity. The difference between the two judgments is that the Beijing Internet Court regarded originality as an independent requirement and judged it according to the objective standard, whereas the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court regarded human creation as part of the requirement of originality. In this sense, it was the Beijing Internet Court that actually made the more favorable judgment on an AI-generated work.

Amorphous nylon 6 film iodinated before forming with an aqueous solution of 1.0N iodine-potassium iodide (I 2 /KI) was deiodinated by dipping in water/ ethylene glycol (EG) solutions of sodium thiosulfate with various EG contents and temperatures, washed with water, and dried at ambient condition. Structural variation through deiodination and the effects of the deiodination conditions were investigated by X-ray diffractometry and differential scanning calorimetry. The degree of swelling of the films immediately after deiodination and the time required to complete the deiodination were generally increased and decreased, respectively, with increasing temperature and EG content. The amorphous iodinated film was crystallized through deiodination. The a-crystal formation became easier with increasing temperature and EG content in the solution. The crystallinity of the films was higher after drying than before drying, suggesting that the drying induced further crystallization without any significant conversion of crystal type.