Interesting initiative but I wonder if the mode provides sufficient granularity. For example, what about an original human-generated text that is entirely translated by an AI?

    | class             | author | modifier/reviewer | 
    | ----------------- | ------ | ----------------- | 
    | none              | human  | human/none        | 
    | ai-modified       | human  | ai                | <--*
    | ai-originated     | ai     | human             |
    | machine-generated | ai     | ai/none           |

Years ago people were arguing that fashion magazines should have to disclose if they photoshopped pictures of women to make them look skinnier. France implemented this law, and I believe other countries have as well. I believe that we should have similar laws for AI generated content.

I'm all for some kind of disclosure, but where do we draw the line. I use a pretty smart grammar and spell checker, one that's got more "AI" in it to analyze the sentence structure. Is that AI content?

It feels like a header is the wrong tool for this, even if you hypothetically would want to disclose that, would you expect a blog cms to offer the feature? Or a web browser to surface it?

Can we have a disclosure for sponsored content header instead?

I'd love to browse without that.

It does not bother me that someone used a tool to help them write if the content is not meant to manipulate me.

Let's solve the actual problem.

Hoping I don't need to click on something, or have something obstructing my view.

Completely the wrong way around. We are heading into a future where everything will be touched by AI in some way, be it things like Photoshop Generative Fill, spell check, subtitles, face filters, upscaling, translation or just good old algorithmic recommendations. Even many smartphones already run AI over every photo they make.

Doing it in a HTTP header is furthermore extremely lossly, files get copy around and that header ain't coming with them. It's not a practical place to put that info, especially when we have Exif inside the images themselves.

The proper way to handle this is mark authentic content and keeping a trail of how it was edited, since that's the rare thing you might to highlight in a sea of slop, https://contentauthenticity.org/ is trying to do that.

Maybe an ignorant question but at the dictionary level, how would one indicate that multiple providers/models went into the resulting work (based on the example given)? Is there a standard for nested lists?

This feels like the Security Flag proposal (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt)

Why only for HTTP? This would be appropriate for MIME multipart/mixed part headers as well. ;)

Maybe better define an RDF vocabulary for that instead, so that individual DIVs and IMGs can be correctly annotated in HTML. ;)

This is like asking the fox to announce itself before entering the henhouse

The bigger challenge here is that we already struggle with basic metadata integrity. Sites routinely manipulate creation dates and author fields for SEO - I regularly see 5-year-old content timestamped as "published yesterday" to game Google's freshness signals.

While this doesn't invalidate the proposal, it does suggest we'd see similar abuse patterns emerge. Once this header becomes a ranking factor, expect to see widespread manipulation there too.