The short of that story: a sci fi magazine tossed in the towel after dealing with a logrithmic increase of submissions/rejections — Clarkesworld Ai may become a byword for the problem.

The only solution I can think of in regards to something like chat gtp, is trust and some form of in person session write to show/authenticate process.

Likely there will be an informal arms race of detetion and evasion.

Hypothetically, a negotiation/agreement could be had between commercial coding entities and writing purchasers to make some sort of detectible thing.

First round might be a generator that embeds a signature within the material (like an invisible fingerprint within the file).  When the user figures this out, it would be trivial to move the material to a new medium without having to figure out how to get into the file and remove it(print, scan).

Second round might be forcing a pattern within the material.  A simplified example of something like this could be “check file inception date and use that as a number maker, use that number to pick a letter, with that letter impose the program to use a word that has that letter in it at x intervals.”  Something hidden in plain view that could be checked against without revealing the “how”. 

The type of person taking up chat gpt very likely would be interested in pulling things apart, so when they get persistent failed submissions/become aware there is detection occurring, they’d likely try and look for emergent patterns within the generation, pull them out, then submit.  Then material receivers will begin to notice an uptick in material that slips through, probably contact the coding entities, and create a more sophisticated marker, and the cycle repeats.

Speaking with the person/submitter may be a workable solution/a means to bypass that sort of cycle.  Have the material, and ask a few questions that someone engrossed in writing would be able to answer.  Questions about overall pacing/patterning/cadence and what they were attempting to invoke in the reader by doing that.  Questions about specific word choice.  Questions about structures and movements.  The “art” of the work.  Also, keep in mind, not every decision in such things are intentional, some emerge as the work comes together.

I’d also note this method may not catch every instance of using material generators; however, it should hamper the ability considerably (and you’d get a real sense of the writer).

This requires, however, probably more time on the behalf of publications and professors to sort through (I’m not terribly familiar with the process of procuring other’s material).  What could solve that issue is constraint by territory.  It’s already done by means of genre/subject.