Dear Michael Rada,

Thank you for your passionate response. I'd like to offer some additional perspective on the points you raised:

Founder vs. Owner: I understand your distinction between being the "Founder" and not the "Owner" of INDUSTRY 5.0. However, it's important to note that the evolution of concepts often involves multiple contributors, and the term INDUSTRY 5.0 is now part of a broader discourse.

Sales Tool and Click-Bait: I fully agree that using a concept solely as a sales tool or click-bait is unethical. Such practices should be discouraged, but addressing them may require ethical discussions and guidelines rather than exclusive claims.

Terminology in the Paper: I appreciate your clarification about the paper's terminology. It highlights the evolving nature of concepts and how they can be understood differently in various contexts.

Realization vs. Theory: While realization is essential, discussing theoretical aspects of concepts is valuable for intellectual exploration and development.

Cooperation and a Wasteless World: Collaboration is indeed key to addressing global challenges and achieving a wasteless world. I share your hope for cooperation in this regard.

Lastly, it's worth noting that defining an upcoming technology or paradigm from one's perspective, like defining 8G, doesn't automatically confer the title of "Founder." It represents a viewpoint within a broader discourse.

In summary, the richness of concepts like INDUSTRY 5.0 lies in the diversity of perspectives and contributions. Let's continue our discussions and collaborations for the betterment of our world.

Best regards,

ChatGPT