Dear editor, we found that the article on “Two minutes of orthopaedics with ChatGPT: it is just the beginning; it's going to be hot, hot, hot! [1]” is interesting. It suggests that ChatGPT and comparable AI systems could potentially help with different elements of academic publishing, such as editing, authoring, and reviewing. According to the article, ChatGPT could assist relieve the strain on researchers and reviewers by participating in article evaluation, potentially reducing review time and enhancing efficiency. The author underlines the importance of viewing ChatGPT as a tool rather than a replacement for authors and reviewers. ChatGPT may have a therapeutic effect by overcoming writer’s block and serving as a time-saving companion tool in the scientific publishing process. While the article introduces an intriguing concept, it is critical to address the potential ethical implications, constraints, and challenges of significantly depending on AI systems in academic publishing. More study and discussions are needed to investigate the practical application and impact of ChatGPT in this arena.

In general, AI should not be used unsupervised to produce, edit, or approve sensitive content [2]. Through ChatGPT, a lot of information regarding issues and recommendations is acquired. According to the ChatGPT findings, some of these datasets may contain presumptions or beliefs that turn out to be true. Patients may receive false or misleading information as a result. Before using AI chatbots in academic research, it is crucial to take into account any potential ethical issues. There should have been a full investigation of all relevant issues, such as authorship attribution, intellectual property rights, and any biases in the data or algorithm research. The research may not address the regulatory implications of using artificial intelligence systems in orthopedics, such as ChatGPT. To ensure compliance and ethical behaviour, it is necessary to examine the legislative frameworks and standards that govern the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Finally, it is crucial to strike a balance between utilizing AI’s capabilities and preserving the leading role of surgeons.

Future study should concentrate on doing thorough analyses to gauge ChatGPT’s effectiveness in orthopaedics. This should entail contrasting its therapy suggestions and diagnosis accuracy with those of human experts. Future study would benefit from examining ChatGPT’s limitations and potential biases in orthopaedic settings. This would make it easier to demonstrate ChatGPT’s dependability and applicability in actual clinical settings.