Problem
Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.
synthetic media
transparency obligations
AI Act
DSA
labelling
When Is Content"AI-Generated Enough"? Labelling Synthetic Media under the Digital Services Act and the AI Act
🤖 AI Summary
论文探讨了在《数字服务法案》和《人工智能法案》下，如何通过标记合成媒体来解决透明度问题，并分析了标记方法的有效性和潜在风险。
📝 Abstract
European platform and AI governance increasingly relies on transparency duties to address synthetic and manipulated media. Under the DSA, very large online platforms and search engines may use prominent markings and recipient-facing indication tools as systemic-risk mitigation measures. Under the AI Act, providers must support machine-readable marking, while deployers must disclose deepfakes and certain AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text, subject to statutory qualifications. This extended abstract examines when labelling is a meaningful regulatory response to synthetic media and when it risks becoming over-inclusive, under-inclusive, or ineffective. 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. Drawing on the emerging Article 50 AI Act implementation framework and a snapshot of the DSA Statement of Reasons database, the paper identifies four governance tensions: definitional ambiguity, interface and responsibility design, communicative effectiveness, and fairness and contestability. It conceptualises labelling as a socio-technical classification practice that distributes responsibility among AI providers, deployers, platforms, uploaders, and recipients.
Innovation
Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.
synthetic media
transparency obligations
governance tensions
socio-technical classification
🔎 Similar Papers
No similar papers found.
