Gili Vidan | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

From Forensics to Ecosystems: Rethinking Watermarks for Generative AI Oversight

The arrival of generative AI as a cheap, widely accessible commercial service, and the tidal wave of AI-generated synthetic content it has unleashed, have provoked deep epistemic and social anxieties and raised difficult governance questions that policymakers are struggling to address. One approach that has attracted both enthusiasm from regulators and skepticism from researchers is digital watermarking. Signals embedded in a synthetically-generated piece of content indicating that it was AI-generated---possibly even identifying the specific systems that generated it---appear to offer a path toward mitigating risks of genAI that avoids the downsides of more interventionist strategies. But critics warn that watermarks may prove technically brittle, epistemically ambiguous, and politically ineffectual tools. In this paper, we explore the challenges and opportunities of using digital watermarking for AI governance, paying special attention to the specific problem of watermarking AI-generated text. We argue that such critiques often treat the problem of identifying synthetic content as an isolated forensic question. Instead, we propose reconceptualizing digital watermarks as tools for understanding the impacts of synthetic content on media ecosystems, rather than reliably identifying individual pieces of synthetic content. Such an ``ecosystems approach'' more effectively utilizes the features of watermarks. And while this approach raises its own governance challenges, we argue that they are more tractable than the challenges of using watermarks for digital forensics.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Making the Unaccountable Internet: The Changing Meaning of Accounting in the Early ARPANET

Contemporary concerns over the governance of technological systems often run up against narratives about the technical infeasibility of designing mechanisms for accountability. While in recent AI ethics literature these concerns have been deliberated predominantly in relation to ML, other instances in computing history also presented circumstances in which computer scientists needed to un-muddle what it means to design accountable systems. One such compelling narrative can be found in canonical histories of the Internet that highlight how its original designers' commitment to the "End-to-End" architectural principle precluded other features from being implemented, resulting in the fast-growing, generative, but ultimately unaccountable network we have today. This paper offers a critique of such technologically essentialist notions of accountability and the characterization of the "unaccountable Internet" as an unintended consequence. It explores the changing meaning of accounting and its relationship to accountability in a selected corpus of requests for comments (RFCs) concerning the early Internet's design from the 1970s and 80s. We characterize four ways of conceptualizing accounting: as billing, as measurement, as management, and as policy, and demonstrate how an understanding of accountability was constituted through these shifting meanings. We link together the administrative and technical mechanisms of accounting for shared resources in a distributed system and an emerging notion of accountability as a social, political, and technical category, arguing that the former is constitutive of the latter. Recovering this history is not only important for understanding the processes that shaped the Internet, but also serves as a starting point for unpacking the complicated political choices that are involved in designing accountability mechanisms for other technological systems today.

cs.CY↗