AI raises several transparency and explainability concerns, two of which are top-of-mind for governments across the globe. First, the interaction with AI systems increasingly mimics human interaction. Second, AI systems are inherently opaque, leaving humans that interact with AI systems in the dark on the factors behind AI decisions. Despite sharing these regulatory concerns, governments choose different regulatory requirements to counter them. 

The OECD AI Principle 1.3 demands that AI actors commit to transparency and responsible disclosure regarding their AI systems. They should provide meaningful information to foster a general understanding of AI, make stakeholders aware of their interactions with AI, and provide information on the factors behind AI output.

In national AI rules, a patchwork of regulatory requirements implements the OECD AI Principle 1.3. The heatmap below visualises divergence within a selection of these requirements, grouped in three categories. Watermarking requirements directly attach to AI systems’ output. Disclosure requirements demand that AI actors actively provide information. Information rights empower users to reactively request information. Our analysis explains each requirement in detail. 

The patchwork of regulatory requirements that implement OECD AI Principle 1.3 is only the tip of the iceberg. Granular differences emerge even within the jurisdictions that impose the same regulatory 1 requirements. To showcase granular divergence, we now proceed with a detailed comparative analysis of the following requirements. Jump directly to the section that interests you:

• Content watermarking
• System-in-use disclosure
• Technical disclosure
• Information rights