How to disclose AI assistance to readers
If AI substantially helped create or revise material readers will see, describe its role in plain language. Say what the tool helped with, what a person checked or changed, and who is responsible for the finished work. Put the note near the article or material it describes, and make it specific enough to inform readers without turning routine spelling support into a dramatic announcement. This guide is for writers preparing a public article, essay, or similar piece; a publisher’s or client’s rules may require a different format.
What should an AI disclosure tell readers?
A useful disclosure answers three questions: **What did AI do? What did a human do afterward? Who stands behind the result?** Readers do not need a transcript of every prompt. They do need enough detail to understand where AI contributed and how the published material was checked.
For example, “An AI writing tool helped reorganize an early draft. The author reviewed and edited the final text and checked its factual claims” is more informative than “AI was used.” The first names the contribution and the review, while leaving responsibility with the author. Use that wording only if it accurately describes the process.
The [MLA Style Center’s guidance on describing AI use](https://style.mla.org/describing-ai-use/) recommends acknowledging substantive AI contributions so readers can understand where AI ends and human input begins. The MLA writes for academic authors; its distinction between a citation and a fuller account of the writing process is useful for other writers deciding what readers need to know. Google’s [people-first content guidance](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content) likewise says that explaining how automation was used can help readers understand content when they would reasonably expect that context.
When is a disclosure useful?
Consider disclosing when AI generated or substantially shaped material that readers would ordinarily understand as the writer’s own work: for example, drafting passages, summarizing sources, producing an illustration, translating substantive text, or generating analysis included in the piece. The more consequential the contribution, the more useful it is to name it specifically.
A small assist—such as spell-checking, catching typos, or suggesting a comma—usually does not need a prominent public note unless the outlet, assignment, or applicable policy says otherwise. There is no single threshold that fits every publication. A newsroom, academic journal, classroom, client, or contest may set its own disclosure requirements, and those rules take precedence over a general editorial judgment.
Disclose especially clearly when AI-generated material could affect a reader’s understanding of evidence or authenticity. Examples include generated quotations, synthetic images presented as documentary, translated testimony, or summaries of research. Do not present invented quotes, events, or visual evidence as real. A disclosure cannot make false or misleading material accurate.
Choose a level of detail that matches the contribution
Use a short note for a limited, low-impact role; add detail when AI contributed to the substance or when the distinction matters to readers. A practical scale is:
These are examples, not mandatory categories. Avoid vague labels such as “AI-assisted” when they leave readers unable to tell whether the system corrected punctuation or wrote a substantial passage. Conversely, do not imply that a machine authored the whole piece if it only suggested a headline.
Where should the note go?
Place the disclosure where a reader can find it while reading the material it covers. For a single article, that often means a brief note at the end, byline area, or caption. For a generated or altered image, put the explanation with the image. If AI support applies only to one section, identify that section rather than implying that the whole article was produced the same way.
If an outlet has a required disclosure field or house style, use it. Don’t rely on a general site policy if the individual item’s AI use would surprise readers or materially shape their interpretation. When the format has little room, keep the note concise and link to a fuller explanation only if a real, relevant policy page exists.
Write the note from the actual workflow
Before drafting the disclosure, make a short record of the process. Identify the tools or functions used, the material they touched, and the checks performed afterward. This is an editorial aid, not a demand to publish a prompt log.
Then describe the contribution in ordinary language. Prefer concrete verbs—“suggested,” “translated,” “drafted,” “summarized,” or “generated”—over a general phrase such as “was involved.” Name a particular product only when the detail helps readers or a governing policy requires it. Avoid saying a tool “verified” information unless a person actually checked the underlying evidence; fluent output is not itself verification.
Finally, make the human review statement precise. “The author checked the cited sources and revised the draft” is stronger than “the output was reviewed,” but only use it if true. If some checks were not possible, don’t imply they happened. The writer or publisher remains accountable for the finished piece and its factual claims.
Examples writers can adapt
Treat these as models to adapt to the actual work, not boilerplate to paste unchanged.
If AI did not produce or materially shape reader-facing content, avoid an unnecessary note that suggests it did. If the AI contribution was substantial, avoid understating it as routine proofreading. The disclosure should help readers form an accurate picture of the process.
A final decision check
Before publishing, ask: Would a reasonable reader want to know that AI performed this task? Could they mistake generated material for a human observation, quotation, or documentary record? Have I described the AI role and human review accurately? Does the outlet or assignment require a particular disclosure?
If the first two answers point toward disclosure, add a short, specific note near the relevant content. If the last answer is yes, follow that rule even when your own note would be shorter. Clear disclosure is a matter of describing the work honestly; it does not guarantee trust, accuracy, or acceptance, and it does not replace source checking or editorial review.
This guide began as an AI-generated draft. Its linked source claims were checked, and its examples and wording were edited for this version.