Generative AI Advertising as a Problem of Trustworthy Commercial Intervention

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18673v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 17:15:06 GMT
• Title: Generative AI Advertising as a Problem of Trustworthy Commercial Intervention
• Abstract summary: Major deployed generative AI advertising systems preserve a visible boundary between commercial content and AI-generated responses.<n>We argue that generative AI fundamentally changes advertising: rather than placing products into discrete slots, it enables interventions on the generative process itself.<n>This reframes generative AI advertising as a problem of trustworthy intervention rather than content placement.
• Score: 10.42076092864207
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Major deployed generative AI advertising systems preserve a visible boundary between commercial content and AI-generated responses. Yet empirical research shows that ads woven directly into large language model (LLM) outputs often go undetected by users. We argue that generative AI fundamentally changes advertising: rather than placing products into discrete slots, it enables interventions on the generative process itself, which induce commercial influence through less observable channels. This reframes generative AI advertising as a problem of trustworthy intervention rather than content placement. We introduce a taxonomy organized by influence tier, corresponding to interventions on progressively more latent variables: product mentions, information framing, behavioral redirection, and long-term preference shaping; and show how these tiers instantiate across modalities and system architectures, including retrieval-augmented generation and agentic pipelines where upstream decisions can sharply constrain downstream outcomes. Both major deployed systems and designed mechanisms concentrate on the most observable and easiest-to-govern tier, while the forms of commercial influence most consequential for user autonomy remain poorly understood and lack frameworks for detection, measurement, or disclosure. The central challenge is whether commercial influence in generative systems can be made trustworthy, i.e., attributable, measurable, contestable, and aligned with user welfare.

Related papers

• The Invisible Editorial Layer: Formalizing Undisclosed Inference-Time Steering, Probability Placement, and the Attribution Problem in Deployed Language Models [0.0]
  Evaluations of generative language models frequently interpret observable behavioral traits, such as political stance, brand inclination, and normative framing, as manifestations of model weights, post-training alignment, or prompting.<n>We examine inference-time framing bias: systematic steering of generated text toward institutional, ideological, or commercial frames without requiring changes to the underlying model parameters.<n>We argue that governance of generative systems must increasingly distinguish between auditing a model and auditing the deployed system that ultimately speaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T15:05:19Z)
• Seeing Is Not Deciding: Can Multimodal LLMs Act as Effective CEOs? [53.05042283845008]
  We introduce C-SUITEBENCH, a controlled multimodal benchmark for executive business decisions.<n>We place nine models in the role of a chief executive officer and evaluate their decision-making ability.<n>We uncover a multimodal integration paradox: adding visual business information degrades constrained resource allocation for all nine models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T10:43:33Z)
• When Life Gives You AI, Will You Turn It Into A Market for Lemons? Understanding How Information Asymmetries About AI System Capabilities Affect Market Outcomes and Adoption [45.10829096284761]
  Complex AI systems can appear highly accurate while making costly errors or embedding hidden defects.<n>This paper provides the first experimental evidence on the role of information asymmetries and disclosure designs in shaping user adoption of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T12:49:28Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• Echoes of AI Harms: A Human-LLM Synergistic Framework for Bias-Driven Harm Anticipation [1.5892420496333068]
  ECHO is a novel framework for proactive AI harm anticipation.<n>It enables early-stage detection of bias-to-harm pathways.<n>We validate ECHO in two high-stakes domains (disease diagnosis and hiring)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:25:21Z)
• Position is Power: System Prompts as a Mechanism of Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) [7.71667852309443]
  System prompts in Large Language Models (LLMs) are predefined directives that guide model behaviour.<n>LLMs deployers increasingly use them to ensure consistent responses across contexts.<n>As system prompts become more complex, they can directly or indirectly introduce unaccounted for side effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T12:19:08Z)
• Information Retrieval Induced Safety Degradation in AI Agents [52.15553901577888]
  This study investigates how expanding retrieval access affects model reliability, bias propagation, and harmful content generation.<n>Retrieval-enabled agents built on aligned LLMs often behave more unsafely than uncensored models without retrieval.<n>These findings underscore the need for robust mitigation strategies to ensure fairness and reliability in retrieval-enabled and increasingly autonomous AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T11:21:40Z)
• Are AI Agents interacting with Online Ads? [0.0]
  This study examines how different AI agents interact with online advertising, whether they incorporate ads into their decision-making processes, and which ad formats prove most effective.<n>We analyze interaction patterns, click behavior, and decision-making strategies through experiments with multimodal language models such as OpenAI GPT-4o, Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Google Gemini 2.0 Flash.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T08:38:57Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Unsupervised Self-Driving Attention Prediction via Uncertainty Mining and Knowledge Embedding [51.8579160500354]
  We propose an unsupervised way to predict self-driving attention by uncertainty modeling and driving knowledge integration. Results show equivalent or even more impressive performance compared to fully-supervised state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T00:28:33Z)
• AI Assurance using Causal Inference: Application to Public Policy [0.0]
  Most AI approaches can only be represented as "black boxes" and suffer from the lack of transparency. It is crucial not only to develop effective and robust AI systems, but to make sure their internal processes are explainable and fair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-01T16:03:06Z)
• Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment [71.9309995623067]
  NeurIPS 2020 requested that research paper submissions include impact statements on "potential nefarious uses and the consequences of failure" We argue that frameworks of harms must be context-aware and consider a wider range of potential stakeholders, system affordances, as well as viable proxies for assessing harms in the widest sense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-26T18:09:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.