Transparency. Openness. Honesty. Or just business as usual? Call it what you will.

 

When properly communicated, transparency around business practices generally leads to more trust with any stakeholder audience.

Beyond legal requirements, some companies may choose to overcommunicate their practices – sustainability reports are a good example here – to build this trust. Others may opt to stick to sharing only what’s required.

Let’s look at our own discipline. Every major producer of thought leadership is using AI in some, if not all, parts of production. But how much should they be telling the world, including the audiences they serve, about the extent of their AI use?

 

So for this edition of the Jury we asked our pool of 12 fastest-finger-first jurors:

‘Should producers of thought leadership disclose more about their use of AI than the law requires?’

And – by a ratio of three to one – they told us ‘Yes’.

 

More context

Before we hear from some of our jurors, it’s worth noting that not only has the use of AI (mainly generative AI) evolved a lot in thought leadership over the past four years, but there is little in the way of legislation around the world governing what producers need to tell consumers.

That changed with the EU AI Act, in particular Section 50 of the Act coming into force last month. All of our jurors work for companies that, while not necessarily headquartered in the EU, will trade in the bloc, and so have to be mindful of the Act.

 

The ‘Yes’ camp

EY Global Content Strategist and Editorial Lead Liz Bolshaw said: “Transparency in the use of AI is essential to building trust and establishing credibility. If thought leadership producers use AI, they should be happy to explain why and how it’s been used.”

Fiona McIntyre, Senior Manager, Content and Thought Leadership at PwC had two arguments backing up her ‘Yes’.

“The first is the benefit to you as the creator of the thought leadership – it shines a spotlight onto the value and quality that you get from human thought and it helps guard against people attributing your expertise to a bot,” she said. “The second is it’s a great demonstration and role modelling of much of what we’re trying to tell our audience about appropriate use of AI to drive better results (not just a cost-saving productivity tool).”

Another ‘Yes’, Duncan Roberts, Associate Director at Cognizant and a Jury first-timer, noted the thought leadership’s reliance on provenance, judgement and reputation, and said: “It’s totally OK, and can be massively beneficial, to use AI… but in order to build trust between a thought leader and their audience, readers should know if AI has materially shaped the work.”

 

Nothing special

Of the three answering ‘No’ to our question of disclosing more than the law requires, two were of the opinion that producers must still be accountable, but AI is another tool.

Paul Bjacek, another Jury first-timer and Global Lead of Worley Insights at energy and chemicals company Worley, said: “AI is a new tool, like spreadsheets in the 1980s, the internet in the 1990s, spell checker in text software, etc.”

Meanwhile, Bob Mertz, Editorial Director at law firm Goodwin, said: “AI is a tool. We don’t disclose that we use computers or the internet. Should creators be held accountable for slop, errors, and copyright violations? Absolutely.”

Our final naysayer, Dolby Lead Copywriter Judson Hamilton, said that the ‘Transparency Obligations’ that form Article50 of the EU AI Act are “pretty extensive” and “adequately cover what ought to be disclosed”.

 

Law, fair

Of our remaining ‘Yes’ jurors, some of whom we’ll cite in our ‘Further Deliberations’ LinkedIn post, two spoke about erring on exceeding likely legal requirements.

Our final first-timer, Eleni Kostopoulos, Director of Content and Thought Leadership at reinsurer Marsh Re, said: “Regulations can’t keep pace with AI developments. Until they do, producers should execute their best judgement about what should be disclosed.”

We’ll give the last word to Anne Blackman, Global Marketing Director for Health Care at BCG. She said: “I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t interpret the law precisely, but I think we’re probably in ‘letter of the law, spirit of the law’ territory here. For professional services firms, trust with clients is critical, and honesty helps build it. So yes.”

 

What do you think? We’d love to know.  

Thought Leadership Jury is Collective Content’s unique way to ask our industry’s leaders to comment on the issues of the day. While not robust market research, it’s meant to provide a fresh, rapid reaction to issues facing thought leadership and content more broadly, sometimes topical, sometimes evergreen. 

And if you think that you or someone you know would be a good fit, and want to become part of our Jury pool, drop the team a line here at Collective Content.

 

This Jury was made up of:

 

Jonathan Barker, Head of Thought Leadership, Natixis

Paul Bjacek, Global Lead – Worley Insights, Worley

Anne Blackman, Global Marketing Director – Health Care, BCG

Liz Bolshaw, Global Content Strategist and Editorial Lead, EY

Judson Hamilton, Lead Copywriter, Dolby

Derek Korte, Managing Editor, Freshworks

Eleni Kostopoulos, Director of Content and Thought Leadership, Marsh Re

Fiona MacIntyre, Senior Manager, Content and Thought Leadership, PwC

Bob Mertz, Editorial Director, Goodwin

Duncan Roberts, Associate Director, Cognizant

Josselyn Simpson, VP, Global Editorial Director, Heidrick & Struggles

Will Sturgeon, Senior Director, Content Marketing and Comms, Everest Group

 

If you think that you or someone you know would be a good fit for Thought Leadership Jury, drop the team a line here at Collective Content.