When Should You Disclose AI Use? The PACED Framework

Source: Taylor Dykes; Nielsen Norman Group article · 2026-09-25

In 2024, the EU adopted a landmark AI law, which requires companies to disclose AI-generated content in particular cases; the transparency obligations started in August 2026.

This change in disclosure policy surfaces a practical concern: telling users about AI use may alter how they judge the content’s trustworthiness, authenticity, or quality, and ultimately may affect brand relationships. Research shows that reactions to AI disclosures are not uniform: they depend on the audience and on the type of content that carries the disclosure, among other factors.

This article summarizes the research and presents 5 factors to weigh when you’re considering whether to disclose AI use for generating text content.

An AI disclosure is a human-readable statement that explains how AI was involved in creating the content.

Disclosures added by the AI user are proactive disclosures, since the creator is sharing the information. Third-party disclosures are made by the platform where the content is hosted or by another user.

Research does not show that AI disclosure consistently produces a negative reaction. Across the experiments and reports we reviewed for this article, there wasn’t one consistent audience reaction to AI disclosure. Its effects varied across studies and contexts: in some cases, AI disclosure made people rate the content as less trustworthy, authentic, or high-quality; in others, it had no measurable effect.

Lorena Licenji and Julian Hoxha reviewed 47 studies of how readers react to AI authorship and disclosure in news. They found no consistent reaction to AI involvement in news production: across the full set of studies, the results varied depending on the type of news, the perceived credibility of the publisher, and the audience characteristics. Only 10 studies in their review explicitly told readers that AI had been involved in creating the content, isolated the effect of the disclosure itself; these studies also found no consistent effect on trust or credibility penalty.

Several studies suggest that audiences’ reactions depend on knowing not only whether the AI was used, but also on knowing what role it played and how much AI contributed to the content.

For example, in Zhuoyan Li and team’s experiment, telling readers that AI had generated the content lowered how they rated the quality of both argumentative essays and creative stories. In contrast, telling them that AI had only edited the text had a narrower effect: ratings fell for creative stories but not for essays.

Additionally, some of the studies reviewed by Licenji and Hoxha found that readers had more negative reactions when the disclosure suggested that AI had produced the content autonomously, without clear human involvement and accountability.

Several studies suggest that, when users expect human judgment, sincerity, or connection in their communications, they’re more likely to rate the content more negatively after an AI disclosure.

All these findings suggest that readers will be more likely to penalize AI use when they believe AI has replaced a meaningful human contribution, such as creativity, sincerity, or personal judgment.

The findings so far describe how readers react once AI use is disclosed. But do they even want disclosure? The answer reveals a contradiction that Siavosh Sahebi, Paul Formosa, and Sarah Bankins call the “disclosure paradox.”

The disclosure paradox refers to readers saying they want AI use disclosed, yet reacting negatively to content that carries that disclosure.

In Sahebi’s and colleagues’ study, participants rated AI-attributed text as less trustworthy, less authentic, and less useful, even though they said that disclosing AI use was important.

Jingchao Fang, Victoria Xiaohan Wen, and Mina Lee found a related tension when they asked people to judge writing scenarios as readers or as writers. Writers were far less likely than readers to consider an AI disclosure necessary. People want to be told about others’ use of AI more than they want to disclose their own.

Guidance for handling AI disclosures cannot be as simple as “AI disclosure erodes trust” or “don’t disclose.” The effect depends on the context.

No single rule determines whether you should disclose. When disclosure isn’t mandated, work through the five PACED factors — policy, audience, context, expectations, and degree of AI contribution — as a set of questions to decide whether to disclose your AI use.

Policy refers to the rules of the country, organization, or platform where people may see your content.

For example, if you’re writing content that falls under the specific cases in the EU AI Act, you legally must disclose your AI use.

If you create for a country or organization that doesn’t have an AI disclosure policy, consider the rules of your platform. Some platforms may automatically apply an AI label based on technical signs. Since third-party AI disclosure triggered the strongest negative reactions in the studies we reviewed, consider proactively disclosing your AI use before the platform does it for you.

Audience includes all the preexisting attitudes your audience has towards technology, AI, and the domain for which you’re creating.

Based on the research summarized here, people with more favorable attitudes toward technology or AI may react less negatively to disclosures. Audiences confident in their own writing may react more negatively to disclosed AI assistance in their evaluations of writing quality.

Context refers to the type of interaction for which the content was created. Disclosures on communication with an emphasis on human experiences (such as fiction or interpersonal writing) might receive greater scrutiny.

Consider how much the value of what you’re communicating depends on qualities that people normally associate with a human author — sincerity, creativity, or personal connection.