On 06-Jun-26 14:06, John R Levine wrote:
Again, I'm not proposing this for copyright/legal reasons - that's
not RSWG business anyway - I'm talking about what RFC readers might expeact
and care about.
For about the fourth time, I think it is fine to ask, but if you're going
to make it a requirement there's a lot more to do that I don't think we
should do, at least not any time soon.
I decided to ask an expert, and here's what it said:
https://chatgpt.com/c/6a2379de-8228-83ec-8695-4c63d9fd08dd
It said I had to log in. Nope. As I'm sure you know, it's tuned to be
sycophantic and tell you that whatever you say is brilliant.
Sorry about that - My question was "do people reading text want to know if it was
generated by a LLM?"
AI content is below my signature.
Brian
The evidence so far suggests a somewhat paradoxical answer:
Yes, most people say they want to know.
Surveys consistently find large majorities favor disclosure when AI has been
used. For example, one 2026 international survey found 86% of respondents
wanted AI-generated content to be disclosed, and journalism studies have
reported similar numbers above 80%.
[https://tribune.net.ph/2026/04/28/transparency-always-wins-a-new-global-study-finds-86-of-consumers-want-ai-generated-content-disclosed?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
But disclosure often makes people trust the text less.
Several experiments have found that labeling content as "AI-generated" reduces
perceived accuracy, authenticity, and willingness to share it—even when the content
itself is unchanged, true, or even human-written. And readers frequently cannot tell the
difference on their own.
In blind tests, people often rate AI-generated content as equal to or better
than human-written content. Some studies found a preference for AI-generated
answers when the source was hidden, with the preference declining once
participants were told the content came from AI.
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384533200_People_are_skeptical_of_headlines_labeled_as_AI-generated_even_if_true_or_human-made_because_they_assume_full_AI_automation?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
So there are really two different questions:
Do readers want transparency?
Generally yes. Many people view disclosure as an ethical issue and want the
information available. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16458?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
Does knowing improve their evaluation of the text?
Not necessarily. In many studies, the label changes perceptions more than the
content itself does.
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384533200_People_are_skeptical_of_headlines_labeled_as_AI-generated_even_if_true_or_human-made_because_they_assume_full_AI_automation?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
For a community such as the IETF, there is a further distinction. Readers might
not care whether an author used an LLM as a spelling checker, grammar aid, or
drafting assistant. They may care much more about whether the technical
content, protocol design, security analysis, and normative requirements were
actually reviewed and validated by the named authors. In that setting,
disclosure is often less about literary authorship and more about
accountability.
In short: people generally want to know, but they do not necessarily use that
information rationally when judging the quality of the text. The research
literature currently points quite strongly in that direction.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384533200_People_are_skeptical_of_headlines_labeled_as_AI-generated_even_if_true_or_human-made_because_they_assume_full_AI_automation?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
