The entire assumption of anyone who doctors the perception of reality, from thumb on a scale to the deepest algorithmic "adjustment" is that their personal attachment to outcome is hidden, obscured, at a minimum provided plausible deniability.

Even brand owners conceal falsity as a monetized feature, at least where that feature is not promoted to those whose agenda and interests it comports.

Thus, disclosure is in practice either concealed or, if overt, the process is concealed, usually as IP. That various interests will sponsor their own GAI, extending competition into the domains engulfed by GAI, places the premium on gaining position, which I can only imagine is defined as strategic advantage in defining reality.

If, as I suggest, concealment is an a priori and fundamental to the operational plausibility of GAI, the two rules suggested here are contrary to the interests of both commercial and state actors.

They are, as you suggest, already aimed, cocked, loaded.

I am not sanguine.