The outline of the 15th Five Year Plan proposes to improve laws, regulations, policy systems, application norms, and ethical standards in the field of artificial intelligence. This year's work report of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress clearly requires "strengthening legislative research in fields such as artificial intelligence". Defining the boundaries of the rule of law for generative artificial intelligence is an important aspect of legislation in emerging fields. In today's constantly expanding application scenarios, the content generated by generative artificial intelligence (AIGC) is very similar in appearance to the content expressed by humans, making it difficult to distinguish intuitively. This makes it difficult for the public to know the true source of information, and also poses difficulties in tracing responsibility and protecting legitimate rights and interests afterwards. Effectively identifying generated content and assigning it a clear "identity" can provide an objective basis for the public to be informed, responsible, and protect their rights and interests. It has become an important tool for improving transparency, safeguarding the right to know, maintaining order in cyberspace, preventing false information, protecting intellectual property rights, and clarifying legal responsibilities. In recent years, China has been continuously exploring the field of generative artificial intelligence governance, gradually building an institutional framework that includes content labeling. In 2022, the Regulations on the Management of Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services clearly put forward the identification requirements for deep synthesis content. In 2023, the Interim Measures for the Management of Generated Artificial Intelligence Services further clarified the identification obligations. In 2025, the National Cyberspace Office and other four departments jointly issued the Measures for the Identification of Human Intelligence Generated Synthetic Content (hereinafter referred to as the Measures) and supporting mandatory national standards, and the system design was gradually refined and promoted layer by layer. Currently, China has made systematic arrangements at the institutional level for explicit and implicit identification, service provider responsibilities, and communication platform obligations, clarifying the identification responsibilities of service providers, communication platforms, and other entities at different stages. In practice, major service providers have begun to embed labels such as "AI generated images", "suspected use of AI generation technology, please carefully distinguish", and "content made with AI technology" on a large scale in the generated content. The awareness of AI labels among all sectors of society has gradually increased, and preliminary results have been achieved in improving content transparency, safeguarding the public's right to know, and preventing the spread of false information. This year, China's cyberspace administration has focused on cracking down on a batch of false and untrue information that spreads without AI identification. A large number of illegal accounts have been dealt with in accordance with laws and regulations, and a large amount of illegal and irregular information has been cleared, achieving positive results. Considering the governance difficulties faced by current generative artificial intelligence in the dissemination of false information and responsibility tracing, and using content identification as a starting point to promote relevant legislative work, the following aspects should be emphasized. Coordinate development and safety, and reasonably define the scope and strength of identification. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that "artificial intelligence brings unprecedented development opportunities, but also unprecedented risks and challenges." The specific progress and important breakthroughs in technological development require long-term accumulation and trial and error stages, and require the standardized construction of legal systems to provide a sustainable space for technological development. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent risks through effective identification and content management, remove obstacles to the healthy operation of the digital economy, and actively encourage innovative applications of technology in various fields, cultivating new forms and models of the digital economy through technological innovation. Specifically in terms of content identification system design, one is to reasonably define the scope and nature of identification, avoiding allowing risks or stifling innovation due to inappropriate scope. For example, the Measures distinguish between explicit and implicit labeling, advocating for a unified technical implementation path based on national standards. This not only responds to the governance needs of "meeting all standards", but also considers the reality of "avoiding excessive labeling", and reserves institutional space for future refinement of implementation rules. The second is to implement differentiated management based on the risk level of the application scenario. For content generated in high-risk areas such as news, financial information, and public health, which directly affect public interests and social order, clear and prominent identification should be adopted, and complete technical traceability information should be retained. For low-risk scenarios such as entertainment, artistic creation, and daily conversation assistance, signage can be relatively simple and gentle to avoid unnecessary interference to users. The third is to continuously enhance the foresight and standardization of the governance system. Continuously improve the legal and regulatory system with the identification system as the main content, and strengthen forward-looking research on new issues and challenges in the development of artificial intelligence. At the same time, in response to the complexity and uncertainty of artificial intelligence applications, we actively explore and apply new regulatory tools and methods such as "regulatory sandboxes" and agile governance, guiding business entities to embrace technological progress while consciously assuming legal obligations, improving the accuracy and adaptability of governance, and creating a stable, transparent, and predictable legal environment for the innovative development of the digital economy. Strengthen the allocation of responsibilities and diverse governance, and strengthen the legal obligations of all parties involved. At present, China is gradually building an AIGC identification governance system based on legal norms, supported by technical standards, guided by risk management, and guided by multi-party collaboration. For example, the Measures clarify the main responsibilities of service providers and the management requirements of network information content dissemination platforms, laying the foundation for the formation of a governance pattern of each performing its own duties, joint management, and collaborative governance. It will further encourage industry self-discipline, strengthen social supervision, enhance public digital literacy, and build a comprehensive governance ecosystem. Especially, China attaches great importance to the role of technical standards and regulations, actively promoting the development and application of relevant national and industry standards, providing important technical support for the implementation of the Measures, and helping to improve the standardization, consistency, and recognizability of content identification. Under the current legal and regulatory framework, it is necessary to further strengthen the scientific allocation and coordinated implementation of relevant responsibilities. Service providers bear the obligation of source identification, and in accordance with the principle of "who generates, who identifies", embed identification synchronously in the content generation process to ensure that the generated content has identifiable identification information before dissemination. The dissemination platform bears the responsibility of verification and notification, conducts technical testing on AI generated content and supplements labeling, takes necessary measures in accordance with the law for high-risk content lacking labeling, and prevents the spread of false information. Users have the obligation to voluntarily declare that they must not intentionally conceal or tamper with the identification when publishing AI generated content. In judicial practice, there have been cases requiring users to fulfill necessary verification obligations. Government departments need to strengthen supervision and institutional innovation, use tools such as "regulatory sandboxes" and agile governance to enhance the accuracy and adaptability of governance, and create a stable, transparent, and predictable legal environment for industrial development. In addition, further strengthen science popularization education, enhance the digital literacy of the entire population, and create a good situation of joint participation in governance in the whole society. Deepen the integration of international rules and actively participate in the construction of global AIGC rules. Currently, the world's century long changes are accelerating, and the global governance system is undergoing profound changes. Artificial intelligence is one of the most critical and active variables in this transformation. Effective governance of generative artificial intelligence has become a common global issue, and many countries are exploring relevant rules. Some have passed legislation to clarify transparency obligations and require labeling of AI generated content. Although there are differences in legislative paths and regulatory priorities among countries, the governance goal is to stimulate technological innovation while ensuring the authenticity and traceability of information, and preventing the risks brought by technological abuse. Faced with a diverse international regulatory framework, China has conducted systematic institutional exploration in the governance of generative artificial intelligence. On this basis, we should continue to uphold an open and inclusive attitude, actively participate in and lead the formulation and coordination of the global artificial intelligence rule system and technical standards on the premise of fully respecting the national sovereignty, legal system, and cultural traditions of all countries, strengthen the docking with countries in development strategies, governance rules, technical standards, etc., and promote the formation of a global governance framework and rules for artificial intelligence with broad consensus. (Looking into the New Era)