Who am I really talking to? Authenticity, transparency, and the case for “AI ticks” in AI-mediated communication

Abstract The growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday messaging systems is transforming the conditions under which interpersonal communication takes place. As AI-mediated communication (AI-MC) becomes increasingly seamless and context-sensitive, it blurs the boundary between human expression and algorithmic assistance. This development raises fundamental questions about potential challenges to authenticity in personal relationships and possible strategies to address them. In this regard, we make three main contributions. First, we offer a technically grounded analysis of emerging AI-MC architectures, distinguishing between external prompting, keyboard-level assistance, and fully integrated in-app co-authoring systems. Second, we develop a normative account of authenticity in AI-MC, understood as a second-person, relationship-sensitive notion, drawing on analytic theories of endorsement, relational normativity, and socially situated self-expression. On this basis, we argue that authenticity cannot be directly engineered by design, since it depends on reflective agency and context-dependent interpersonal obligations. Third, we advance a design-oriented proposal aimed at mitigating authenticity-related concerns without resorting to paternalistic restrictions: the introduction of optional and granular disclosure mechanisms (“AI ticks”) that allow users to signal the presence and degree of AI assistance in a context-sensitive manner. We argue that such forms of transparency function not as a substitute for authenticity, but as a pro-ethical condition that enables agents to negotiate authenticity-based obligations within their relationships. The analysis contributes to current debates on the ethics of AI-mediated communication and the conditions of responsible human–AI interaction.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI and Ethics
Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-026-01498-1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Who am I really talking to? Authenticity, transparency, and the case for “AI ticks” in AI-mediated communication

Andrea Lavazza, Andreas Komninos, Davide Battisti
AI and Ethics
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Who am I really talking to? Authenticity, transparency, and the case for “AI ticks” in AI-mediated communication

Andrea Lavazza, Andreas Komninos, Davide Battisti
article en

Abstract

Abstract The growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday messaging systems is transforming the conditions under which interpersonal communication takes place. As AI-mediated communication (AI-MC) becomes increasingly seamless and context-sensitive, it blurs the boundary between human expression and algorithmic assistance. This development raises fundamental questions about potential challenges to authenticity in personal relationships and possible strategies to address them. In this regard, we make three main contributions. First, we offer a technically grounded analysis of emerging AI-MC architectures, distinguishing between external prompting, keyboard-level assistance, and fully integrated in-app co-authoring systems. Second, we develop a normative account of authenticity in AI-MC, understood as a second-person, relationship-sensitive notion, drawing on analytic theories of endorsement, relational normativity, and socially situated self-expression. On this basis, we argue that authenticity cannot be directly engineered by design, since it depends on reflective agency and context-dependent interpersonal obligations. Third, we advance a design-oriented proposal aimed at mitigating authenticity-related concerns without resorting to paternalistic restrictions: the introduction of optional and granular disclosure mechanisms (“AI ticks”) that allow users to signal the presence and degree of AI assistance in a context-sensitive manner. We argue that such forms of transparency function not as a substitute for authenticity, but as a pro-ethical condition that enables agents to negotiate authenticity-based obligations within their relationships. The analysis contributes to current debates on the ethics of AI-mediated communication and the conditions of responsible human–AI interaction.

AI and EthicsVol. 6(6)
University of Patras (GR), University of Zurich (CH), Pegaso University (IT), University of Florence (IT)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon