The article examines the problem of authorship, which has become acute in connection with the use of artificial intelligence, which has some creative capabilities like humans. Questions arise about who is the author of the work or its individual fragments, if neural networks were used in its preparation. At first glance, it is clear that creativity is a process in which the personality of the creator is represented, and any technical systems have nothing to do with it. However, questions arise regarding the general use of fragments created using a neural network, even if they are included in some integral work of authorship. The article notes that there are different legal practices on this matter in different countries. To solve the problem, we propose expanding the methodological part of the work, where the author’s ideas for using a neural network can be explained, as well as expanding the use in scientific works of the author’s achievements in his past works (newly interpreted, supplemented), which is currently incompatible with the requirement of many journals . It is the author’s work, reflecting the history of the development of his ideas, that will contain the most obvious guarantees that such work was not created by a neural network.
authorship; neural network; artificial intelligence; creativity; associations; law; qualifying works; scientometrics.