AI Use Disclosure

Generative artificial intelligence has become increasingly incorporated into digital media and more generally into production workflows with which the public frequently interacts. Current provenance standards and disclosure methods frequently rely on binary categorizations, differentiating only between entirely human-authored and AI-generated content, or depend on technical watermarking that lacks user-facing clarity. However, there are very different risks and outcomes depending on the different uses of AI in the creation and consumption of end products. Therefore, we propose the Reported Engagement with AI Level (REAL) Rating framework which addresses these concerns by introducing a six-tier scale (Levels 0-5) that discloses the extent of AI involvement in both product creation and user experience. This paper details the structural methodology of the REAL Rating system and the specifics of its application across text, image, audio, video, and software products.

As generative AI tools find increasing use in research workflows, ongoing debates on their impact, appropriateness and responsible use have led policymakers to enact policies to disclose AI use at multiple publishing venues. However, are current AI disclosure policies and practices reflective of their purpose? In this work, we first investigate disclosure policies of top computer science venues and find that despite their prevalence, they remain highly under-specified. Secondly, through a survey of computer science researchers (N=$109$), we characterize the necessity of disclosures across different research tasks and levels of human involvement. We learn that researchers find disclosures most necessary for tasks involving research design, and for tasks when the human involvement is low. We also compile expectations that researchers have about the information to be conveyed in AI disclosure statements. Lastly, through an analysis of $13867$ disclosure statements from EMNLP $2025$ and ICLR $2026$, we reveal a large disconnect between these expectations and AI disclosures in practice---a prime example being writing assistance which is deemed less necessary but is frequently disclosed. We conclude with recommendations to align AI disclosure policies and practices with expectations, suggesting a categorization of research tasks by perceived necessity and a boilerplate template capturing expected details.

The growing role of AI-generated content and AI-enabled systems in public communication has led regulators to demand clear disclosure of content provenance and AI involvement. But the effects of such disclosures remain uncertain. We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI chatbot's persuasive appeal. In a preregistered experiment, 1,500 UK adults held a short conversation with a persuasive chatbot about one of 60 policy issues. The chatbot was identical for everyone. We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the chatbot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2). The chatbot shifted attitudes by 12.6 points on a 100-point scale in the control group. The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points. It also made participants view the campaign's methods as less acceptable and support stronger penalties against it. For direct chatbot interactions, transparency about AI identity alone does not meaningfully impact its influence. While current rules emphasize what a system is, our results show why the regulation of persuasive AI must also address what the system is trying to do.

As newsrooms integrate generative AI, journalists face a disclosure challenge: how to communicate AI involvement in ways that maintain reader trust. Current practice offers two approaches: brief one-line labels or detailed disclosures specifying human oversight, editorial accountability, and error reporting mechanisms. Neither achieves journalists' goal of building trust through transparency. An existing controlled experiment with 34 news readers show that detailed disclosures trigger a transparency dilemma, reducing trust rather than increasing it, and risk introducing dark patterns that readers scroll past with the illusion of transparency. One-line disclosures avoid this effect but can create an information gap, prompting readers to expend cognitive effort searching for signs of AI involvement that the disclosure indicates but does not explain. Yet readers are not rejecting transparency, they proposed disclosure designs centered on user agency: detail-on-demand interactions, proportional AI-ratio visualizations, outlet-level signals, and explicit "no AI" labels. I argue that this disconnect between what practitioners believe is responsible disclosure and what users actually need is a design problem for the HCI community.

AI systems are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where users may be uncertain whether they are speaking with a human or an AI. Despite mounting regulatory attention to this known safety risk, existing evaluations of AI disclosure are typically English-only, based on machine-generated questions, and restricted to text. We present RealityTest to comprehensively test whether AI systems disclose their identity when asked. The benchmark is the first large-scale multimodal and multilingual evaluation, grounded in human data on how people actually encounter and question AI identity in the real-world. Alongside the benchmark, we release the underlying dataset of 3,152 identity-probing queries collected from ~750 participants across 49 countries and five languages, in text and speech scenarios. We find that only 31% of people ask about identity directly in ambiguous scenarios, and that the questions people ask are far more diverse than machine-generated queries. We test 17 text and 6 speech models, and find substantial variation in disclosure behaviour. However, a single suppression instruction reduces disclosure rates to below 30%, even in the best-performing models. Validating our investment in diverse, human-grounded evaluation data, we find that how the question is phrased and the context of the conversation matter more for disclosure than which model is being tested. Safety evaluations built on narrow or synthetic query sets risk mischaracterising how models behave in realistic deployment settings.

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into journalism, designing effective AI-use disclosures that inform readers without imposing unnecessary burden is a key challenge. While prior research has primarily focused on trust and credibility, the impact of disclosures on readers' attentional and cognitive load remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a $3\times2\times2$ mixed factorial study manipulating the level of AI-use disclosure detail (none, one-line, detailed), news type (politics, lifestyle), and role of AI (editing, partial content generation), measuring load via NASA-TLX and eye-tracking. Our results reveal a significant attentional cost: one-line disclosures resulted in significantly higher fixation durations and saccade counts, particularly for AI-edited content. Detailed disclosures did not impose additional burden. Drawing on Information-Gap Theory, we argue that brief labels may trigger increased visual scrutiny by alerting readers to AI use without providing enough information. NASA-TLX scores and pupil diameter showed no significant differences across conditions, suggesting that AI-use disclosures do not impose cognitive burden regardless of the detail level. Interview insights contextualize these findings and reveal a strong preference for detailed or ``detail-on-demand'' designs. Our findings inform the design of gaze-informed adaptive disclosure interfaces that dynamically adjust transparency levels based on readers' attentional patterns and news context.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into writing processes, challenging traditional notions of authorship, responsibility, and intellectual contribution. Current disclosure practices usually indicate whether AI was used, but rarely explain how it was used, where it intervened, or how its output was reviewed. This paper proposes a faceted model for representing AI-assisted text production at the levels of documents, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The proposal introduces a core model based on Form, Generation, and Evaluation, and an extended model that adds Intent, Control, and Traceability. The model is positioned as a minimal operational baseline with extensibility toward higher-fidelity representations. A worked example based on the production of this article demonstrates applicability.

The growing use of AI applications among freelance workers is reshaping trust and relationships with clients. This paper investigates how both workers and clients perceive AI use and disclosure in the freelance economy through a three-stage study: interviews with workers and two survey studies with workers and clients. Findings first reveal a key expectation gap around disclosure: Workers often adopt passive disclosure practices, revealing AI use only when asked, as they assume clients can already detect it. Clients, however, are far less confident in recognizing AI-assisted work and prefer proactive disclosure. A second finding highlights the role of unclear or absent client AI policies, which leave workers consistently misinterpreting clients' expectations for AI use and disclosure. Together, these gaps point to the need for clearer guidelines and practices for AI disclosure. Insights extend beyond freelancing, offering implications for trust, accountability, and policy design in other AI-mediated work domains.

As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly integrates into crowdfunding practices, strategic disclosure of AI involvement has become critical. Yet, empirical insights into how different disclosure strategies influence investor decisions remain limited. Drawing on signaling theory and Aristotle's rhetorical framework, we examine how mandatory AI disclosure affects crowdfunding performance and how substantive signals (degree of AI involvement) and rhetorical signals (logos/explicitness, ethos/authenticity, pathos/emotional tone) moderate these effects. Leveraging Kickstarter's mandatory AI disclosure policy as a natural experiment and four supplementary online experiments, we find that mandatory AI disclosure significantly reduces crowdfunding performance: funds raised decline by 39.8% and backer counts by 23.9% for AI-involved projects. However, this adverse effect is systematically moderated by disclosure strategy. Greater AI involvement amplifies the negative effects of AI disclosure, while high authenticity and high explicitness mitigate them. Interestingly, excessive positive emotional tone (a strategy creators might intuitively adopt to counteract AI skepticism) backfires and exacerbates negative outcomes. Supplementary randomized experiments identify two underlying mechanisms: perceived creator competence and AI washing concerns. Substantive signals primarily affect competence judgments, whereas rhetorical signals operate through varied pathways: either mediator alone or both in sequence. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights for entrepreneurs, platforms, and policymakers strategically managing AI transparency in high-stakes investment contexts.

Existing AI disclosure mandates in scholarship require that AI assistance be reported but leave transparency philosophically unspecified: they fix the duty without explaining what the duty serves. We argue that ethical inquiry is essentially contested at two independent levels -- about what it is, and about what it demands of the inquirer -- defeating output-only evaluation and welfare-economic dismissal of the transparency question, and, by extension, reproducibility framings imported from the empirical sciences. The transparency duty is grounded instead in agent-integrity: the legibility, before a community of inquiry, of the identity-constituting commitments that the author's mode of philosophising expresses. Because the standards for evaluating such work are not communally settled, the achievable goal for transparency is not evaluation against agreed criteria but tracking -- accumulating the evidentiary record that lets each tradition assess the work on its own terms and makes future normative judgments possible. We develop a documentation-adequacy framework that operationalises Meaningful Human Control through five transparency elements -- declaration, navigation, documentation account, process documentation, and development records -- demonstrated by the paper itself, whose full documentation record is archived at a persistent identifier. The framework is a first iteration subject to revision, not a settled standard.