What Influences Readers' and Writers' Perceived Necessity of AI Disclosure?
For researchers and policymakers in AI ethics and human-computer interaction, this work provides empirical insights into grassroots perceptions of AI disclosure, though it is incremental as it applies survey methods to a known issue.
This study investigates factors influencing perceived necessity of AI disclosure in writing, finding that readers consider disclosure more necessary than writers, and that replaceability, directness, and lack of intentionality increase perceived necessity. Effort had no significant effect.
The growing capability of artificial intelligence (AI) leads to its increasing adoption in writing, spurring discussions around whether writers should disclose their AI use in writing. What influences the perceived necessity of disclosure? We look into this question from three dimensions: perspective (reader or writer of the text), purpose (the goal of reading or writing), and procedural factors (how AI was used in the writing process in terms of replaceability, effortfulness, intentionality, and directness). In a vignette study (N = 727), we find that readers consider disclosure to be more necessary than writers, and disclosure is regarded as more necessary when AI's contribution in writing is irreplaceable, directly incorporated, and when the writer does not intentionally steer AI generation. To our surprise, the writers' intentionality of AI use produces contrasting effects on readers' and writers' perceived necessity of disclosure. Moreover, the effort of writing shows no significant effect on the perceived necessity. This study contributes to the conversation on transparent AI use by revealing readers' and writers' grassroots judgments, providing a unique angle to reflect on existing regulations, and offering insights into how AI disclosure guidance and tools could be designed to better align with readers' and writers' perceptions.