Specification · 1.0.0-draft
How it is defined, and how it talks to everything else.
This is a declaration standard, not a proof standard. It cannot be verified by cryptography and it is not trying to be. Neither can a byline.
Decision procedure
Five questions, asked in order. The first one that terminates gives the level.
| # | Question | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Was any generative AI used in making this work? | next | 0 |
| 2 | Did AI produce new material that appears in the published work — beyond mechanically processing what you had already made? | next | 1 |
| 3 | Did you make most of the final form yourself — most of the words, pixels, or sound? | 2 | next |
| 4 | Is the substance yours — the knowledge, the data, the argument, the direction? | 3 | next |
| 5 | Did a human review this before publication and take responsibility for what it says? | 4 | 5 |
Surfaces
Optional. A single number describes the work as a whole. When parts of it differ sharply, declare them. The badge always shows one number; the breakdown lives behind the link.
Headline rule. The headline level describes the part of the work that carries its meaning. Decorative material that a reasonable audience would not consider material to the work does not drive the headline — declare it here instead.
Recognised surfaces: textimageaudiovideocodedata
{
"aiUsageScale": "1.0",
"level": 3,
"surfaces": { "text": 3, "image": 5, "audio": 0 }
} Edge cases
Every one of these came from trying to break the decision tree. They are settled here so that two honest people reach the same number.
- Translation
-
A faithful translation inherits the level of the source work and adds a translation note. Translating a Level 1 article with a model publishes it as Level 1, translated by AI.
The substance and structure are unchanged. Penalising translation would make the world's writing less available, which is the opposite of the point.
- Transcription
-
Transcribing speech you recorded is mechanical processing. It does not raise the level.
The words are yours. The model only wrote them down.
- Decorative assets
-
A generated header image on a human-written article does not make the article Level 4. Declare the image under Surfaces.
The headline level describes what carries the meaning. Otherwise one stock image would swallow the whole declaration, and people would simply stop declaring.
- Derivative works
-
Declare the level of your own contribution, and cite the level of the source if it declared one.
- Live generation
-
Content generated on demand and shown to a user without review is Level 5, even if the system prompt was written carefully by a person.
- Non-generative machine learning
-
Autofocus, denoise, upscaling, colour matching, and classification that invent nothing are not generative AI. They do not move you off Level 0.
Interoperability
This scale complements provenance standards. It maps to the established IPTC vocabulary and experiments with the candidate syntax discussed by the W3C AI Content Disclosure Community Group; that syntax is not a W3C standard.
W3C AI Content Disclosure Community Group
The W3C AI Content Disclosure Community Group is discussing candidate syntax and a four-part model, but has not published a W3C standard. This scale currently emits experimental ai-disclosure metadata aligned with that model; consumers must not treat it as standardised W3C markup.
IPTC Digital Source Type NewsCodes
Every level maps to an IPTC term, so a declaration can travel into C2PA manifests, XMP, and the metadata Meta, Pinterest, and Google already read. The mapping is lossy in one direction only: IPTC cannot tell Levels 3, 4, and 5 apart.
C2PA / Content Credentials
Complementary, not competing. C2PA provides tamper-evident, signed provenance about an asset and its processing history. Its core specification does not attribute content to individuals or organisations, and provenance alone cannot determine whose thinking shaped a work. This scale is a declaration about contribution and review, designed to work for web text as well as media files.
Level mapping
| # | Experimental ai-disclosure | IPTC |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | none | digitalCreation |
| 1 | ai-assisted | algorithmicallyEnhanced |
| 2 | ai-assisted | compositeWithTrainedAlgorithmicMedia |
| 3 | ai-generated | trainedAlgorithmicMedia |
| 4 | ai-generated | trainedAlgorithmicMedia |
| 5 | autonomous | trainedAlgorithmicMedia |
The mapping is lossy in exactly one direction, and the loss is the point: IPTC cannot tell Levels 3, 4 and 5 apart. It has no term for whose substance this is, and none for whether a person read it. Those are the two questions readers actually care about, and they are the two this scale exists to answer.
Machine-readable form
The canonical English definitions live in one file and drive the badges and machine-readable output. Localised explanatory copy is maintained separately and checked for structural parity.
GET /levels.json · CC0
<!-- AI Usage Scale proposal; custom metadata, not a registered standard -->
<meta name="ai-usage" content="3">
<meta name="ai-usage-standard" content="https://usagescale.org">
<!-- Experimental W3C Community Group alignment; not a W3C standard -->
<meta name="ai-disclosure" content="ai-generated">
<link rel="ai-disclosure" href="https://usagescale.org/3"> Prior art
Nothing here is unprecedented, and pretending otherwise would be its own small dishonesty.
AI Assessment Scale (AIAS)
Five non-hierarchical levels, adopted by hundreds of institutions in 30+ languages. AIAS describes what a student is permitted to do. This scale describes what an author did. The debt is direct: the principle that no level ranks above another is theirs, and it is the most important rule here.
Creative Commons
The three-layer model — a mark anyone can read, a page that explains it, a specification that pins it down — is theirs.
Human Provenance in Film
Three tiers, free, CC BY 4.0. Proof that a graded standard can launch in a hostile industry.