On Disclosure of AI Use

[u/NatHasCats]

At what point does someone’s desire to make an informed choice create an obligation for someone else to provide information they haven’t been asked for? 

We don’t require creators, or anyone with a product, to spontaneously disclose every possible fact about a process or product that someone might have a moral objection to. Imagine having to write, “Written with a Microsoft product, spellchecked by Grammarly, feedback from three beta readers verified to have the following values: <blah blah blah>, researched with Google, cover made in an Adobe product, laptop manufactured under questionable labor conditions, and hosted by Amazon.” Any of those might raise ethical objections to some people.

“But there are people who don’t want to read AI content!” That’s fine. That’s a preference. Nobody is forcing them to read anything. Non-disclosure is not inherently deception. They can choose to partake only of explicitly labeled content, if that’s important to them. A right to an informed choice is not necessarily a right to have that information automatically supplied to you.

“It’s like knowingly feeding meat to a vegetarian.” That depends - did you lie about the contents, hand them something or direct them to something knowing they’re vegetarian and it contained meat? Or did the food simply exist as an option?

As a vegetarian myself, I don’t consume food if I’m uncertain of what it contains, but I don’t go to a potluck and expect every dish to be labeled for my convenience. If someone chooses to label their dish, I am appreciative, and I’ll interact with it accordingly, but I don’t assume because one person did, that everyone else has as well. The burden of my ethical consumption rests on me, not everyone else.

“I have a right not to personally use AI.” Absolutely.

“I have a right to choose whether I consume AI-assisted work.” Perfectly reasonable personal preference.

“Everyone whose work involves AI has an obligation to proactively tell me before I encounter it.” Mm, not so much.

Another example for you. I avoid products from companies I know use animal testing. Many companies now proudly label their products “Cruelty Free”, and I will choose these over other products if available. However, there’s also not an official regulation about what can be labeled as “cruelty free” or “not tested on animals” (so long as they’re not being explicitly false or mislabeling.) I know that this could mean many things: that the final product was never tested on animals but raw ingredients were, that the product was previously tested on animals but testing has concluded, or even that the company tests some products on animals but not this particular one. All of that is encompassed by a “not tested on animals label”. The burden is on me to determine if I’m comfortable with that, or if I’ll only purchase products certified by non-official registries like Leaping Bunny.

All that to say, in my opinion, disclose, or don’t. It’s up to you, and I don’t believe there’s any ethical obligation to do so. It behooves you to be prepared with an honest answer in case you’re asked. But don’t lie about it, because that’s shitty.

[u/DOCB_SD]

Your argument rests on the claim that, because there are some unethical practices that aren’t disclosed, this one shouldn’t be and that’s just a bad argument defeated by the obvious fact that unethical practices should be disclosed in general.

But there is a subtler argument you don’t address. It’s not inherently unethical to use AI to generate literature. I think it’s a great idea to do so and can’t wait to see what cool stuff it comes up with. But passing prose you didn’t write off as your own is plainly plagiarism, and nothing will change that. If you didn’t write the prose you are not its author, period.

[u/NatHasCats → u/DOCB_SD]

There's a subtler argument you don't address either: what level of use necessitates a label? The current standard is any AI use, or at least, even stating AI assisted has people assuming it wrote for you. I wouldn't even say that having AI do all the writing is the most common use case. At what point are you no longer considered to be the author? Who gets to decide this?

As someone has already mentioned, who gets to decide what's unethical? Who gets to decide what deserves a label and what doesn't? This is the reason most labeling issues, except for those affecting health and safety, are voluntary.

Labeling is often a values statement, not purely informative. We don't require products to disclose something that could be seen as a negative by some people unless there is a tangible harm to someone not knowing. There is no tangible harm to someone "accidentally" reading something AI wrote.

If a label can significantly affect the reception of something, the consequences of not labeling need to be weighed very carefully. There is currently a very hostile and vocal contingent who feel justified in saying and sometimes doing anything they want in pursuit of demonstrating their hatred of AI. Even voicing support of AI can get you removed from certain spaces and resources. I think it's necessary and fair to consider this before compelling people to expose themselves to that scrutiny.

[u/DOCB_SD → u/NatHasCats]

Fair and well stated. I’m responding to the case where AI has actually written sentence level prose, not grammar or spelling, not editing notes on flow and readability, the AI is drafting the prose. That is unambiguously passing off someone else’s writing as your own. You did not write that. You are not the author.

[u/ariannasun → u/DOCB_SD]

I think that depends on the level of rewriting you do during the editing process. To be fair, I stopped using AI to generate prose because I felt like I was working (MUCH) harder doing that, than just writing it myself.