Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the global trend of mandatory labeling for generative AI, arguing that such legislation is largely a symbolic response to technological anxiety rather than a practical solution. The authors highlight how these labeling requirements create implementation challenges and may stifle the advancement of AI technologies. By analyzing three theoretical frameworks鈥攙alue dilution, information authenticity, and proactive regulation鈥攖hey reveal that these approaches stem from regulators' cognitive limitations, ultimately rendering the labeling a regulatory placebo that obscures more pressing legal issues in the tech landscape.
Mandatory GenAI labeling may be more about regulatory optics than effective governance, risking the very innovation it aims to control.
We examine the worldwide trend of mandatory labeling of generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) as a reactive, symbolic form of legislation triggered by technological panic and institutional responses. From a technical perspective, this study demonstrates that current mandatory labeling not only creates implementation dilemmas but also risks hindering the evolutionary trajectory of AI technology. We then systematically analyze the three dominant theoretical strands of this regime, the value dilution theory, the information authenticity theory, and the proactive regulation theory, and find that they are products of regulators' cognitive limitations in understanding the logic of modern technology. Not only do such formalistic compliance requirements become a regulatory placebo, but they also obscure the genuine legal demands of the technological era. This challenges the current governance paradigm and suggests a shift from identity-label governance to content governance, with an urgent need to address the complex problems associated with GenAI.
