Generative AI and Its Implications for Definitions of Trust

In this paper, we undertake a critical analysis of how chatbots built on generative artificial intelligence impact assumptions underlying definitions of trust. We engage a particular definition of trust and the object-oriented model of trust that was built upon it and identify how at least four implicit assumptions may no longer hold. Those assumptions include that people generally provide others with a default level of trust, the ability to identify whether the trusted agent is human or artificial, that risk and trust can be readily quantified or categorized, and that there is no expectation of gain by agents engaged in trust relationships. Based on that analysis, we suggest modifications to the definition and model to accommodate the features of generative AI chatbots. Our changes re-emphasize developers’ responsibility for the impacts of their AI artifacts, no matter how sophisticated the artifact may be. The changes also reflect that trust relationships are more fraught when participants in such relationships are not confident in identifying the nature of a potential trust partner.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Information
Published
2024-09-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/info15090542
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.63
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Generative AI and Its Implications for Definitions of Trust

Marty J. Wolf, Frances S. Grodzinsky, Keith Miller
5 citations
Information
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.63
article

Generative AI and Its Implications for Definitions of Trust

Marty J. Wolf, Frances S. Grodzinsky, Keith Miller
article en
5 citations

Abstract

In this paper, we undertake a critical analysis of how chatbots built on generative artificial intelligence impact assumptions underlying definitions of trust. We engage a particular definition of trust and the object-oriented model of trust that was built upon it and identify how at least four implicit assumptions may no longer hold. Those assumptions include that people generally provide others with a default level of trust, the ability to identify whether the trusted agent is human or artificial, that risk and trust can be readily quantified or categorized, and that there is no expectation of gain by agents engaged in trust relationships. Based on that analysis, we suggest modifications to the definition and model to accommodate the features of generative AI chatbots. Our changes re-emphasize developers’ responsibility for the impacts of their AI artifacts, no matter how sophisticated the artifact may be. The changes also reflect that trust relationships are more fraught when participants in such relationships are not confident in identifying the nature of a potential trust partner.

InformationVol. 15(9)
Sacred Heart University (US), University of Missouri–St. Louis (US), Bemidji State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.