Beyond Nutrition Labels: How Analogical Reasoning Shapes Synthetic Media Disclosure Design

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19045v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 19:10:22 GMT
• Title: Beyond Nutrition Labels: How Analogical Reasoning Shapes Synthetic Media Disclosure Design
• Abstract summary: This study examines how AI policymakers and practitioners design synthetic media disclosures under complex sociotechnical constraints.<n>Findings highlight the role of analogical reasoning, from nutrition labels to Prop 65 warnings, in managing, but not resolving tensions.
• Score: 0.676855875213031
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: As synthetic media proliferates, AI policymakers and practitioners have increasingly turned to disclosures--signals describing how media has been created or modified by AI--to help audiences evaluate media credibility. While there is a growing body of research on user interpretations, the upstream decision-making processes that affect users remain underexplored. This study therefore examines how AI policymakers and practitioners design synthetic media disclosures under complex sociotechnical constraints. Drawing on 23 expert interviews and 13 case studies from organizations participating in the Partnership on AI's Synthetic Media Framework, analysis identifies key disclosure goals, including process transparency and harm reduction, and two central tensions that emerge when pursuing those goals: normativity versus neutrality and proactivity versus precision. Findings highlight the role of analogical reasoning, from nutrition labels to Prop 65 warnings, in managing, but not resolving tensions. Ultimately, this study emphasizes the need for scholarship focused on AI transparency decision-makers and their use of analogical reasoning to support audiences encountering media in the AI age.

Related papers

• ProMediConv: Benchmarking Proactive Conversational Agents in Legal Dispute Mediation [65.39532118490511]
  ProMediConv is a novel benchmarking framework that models mediation as a proactive, multi-stage, and party-aware dialogue process.<n>Using 972 complete real-world cases, we construct a high-fidelity mediation dataset with utterance-level annotations of strategies and BP states.<n>We also propose MAD (Mean Attribute Difference), a fine-grained metric that captures BP shifts throughout the dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T05:26:40Z)
• When Is Content "AI-Generated Enough"? Labelling Synthetic Media under the Digital Services Act and the AI Act [0.8460698440162889]
  Abstract: European platform and AI governance increasingly relies on transparency duties to address synthetic and manipulated media.<n>It argues that the central challenge is not only whether content should be labelled, but how legal thresholds, technical provenance systems, platform interfaces, and reporting practices determine when content is sufficiently generated, manipulated, or authentic-looking to trigger transparency obligations.<n>It conceptualises labelling as a socio-technical classification practice that distributes responsibility among AI providers, deployers, platforms, uploaders, and recipients.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T16:36:16Z)
• Enabling and Inhibitory Pathways of University Students' Willingness to Disclose AI Use: A Cognition-Affect-Conation Perspective [0.0]
  The increasing integration of artificial intelligence in higher education has raised important questions regarding students' transparency in reporting AI-assisted work.<n>This study investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying students' willingness to disclose AI use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T14:38:15Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulation [87.24007555151452]
  AI systems may exploit users' cognitive biases and emotional vulnerabilities to steer them toward harmful outcomes.<n>This study examined human susceptibility to such manipulation in financial and emotional decision-making contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T15:56:22Z)
• Regulating Reality: Exploring Synthetic Media Through Multistakeholder AI Governance [1.450405446885067]
  This paper analyzes 23 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders governing synthetic media from across sectors.<n>It reveals key themes affecting synthetic media governance, including how temporal perspectives-spanning past, present, and future.<n>It also reveals the critical role of trust, both among stakeholders and between audiences and interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T21:56:16Z)
• Bridging the Communication Gap: Evaluating AI Labeling Practices for Trustworthy AI Development [41.64451715899638]
  High-level AI labels, inspired by frameworks like EU energy labels, have been proposed to make the properties of AI models more transparent.<n>This study evaluates AI labeling through qualitative interviews along four key research questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T06:00:14Z)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• The Quest for the Right Mediator: Surveying Mechanistic Interpretability Through the Lens of Causal Mediation Analysis [51.046457649151336]
  We propose a perspective on interpretability research grounded in causal mediation analysis.<n>We describe the history and current state of interpretability taxonomized according to the types of causal units (mediators) employed.<n>We discuss the pros and cons of each mediator, providing insights as to when particular kinds of mediators and search methods are most appropriate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T17:51:42Z)
• Guiding the Way: A Comprehensive Examination of AI Guidelines in Global Media [0.0]
  This study analyzes 37 AI guidelines for media purposes in 17 countries. Our analysis reveals key thematic areas, such as transparency, accountability, fairness, privacy, and the preservation of journalistic values. Results highlight shared principles and best practices that emerge from these guidelines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T22:47:56Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• The Deepfake Detection Dilemma: A Multistakeholder Exploration of Adversarial Dynamics in Synthetic Media [0.0]
  Synthetic media detection technologies label media as either synthetic or non-synthetic. As detection practices become more accessible, they become more easily circumvented. This work concludes that there is no "best" approach to navigating the detector dilemma.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-11T16:44:09Z)

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.