Trust and Trustworthiness in AI

Abstract Achieving trustworthy AI is increasingly considered an essential desideratum to integrate AI systems into sensitive societal fields, such as criminal justice, finance, medicine, and healthcare, among others. For this reason, it is important to spell out clearly its characteristics, merits, and shortcomings. This article is the first survey in the specialized literature that maps out the philosophical landscape surrounding trust and trustworthiness in AI. To achieve our goals, we proceed as follows. We start by discussing philosophical positions on trust and trustworthiness, focusing on interpersonal accounts of trust. This allows us to explain why trust, in its most general terms, is to be understood as reliance plus some “extra factor”. We then turn to the first part of the definition provided, i.e., reliance, and analyze two opposing approaches to establishing AI systems’ reliability. On the one hand, we consider transparency and, on the other, computational reliabilism . Subsequently, we focus on debates revolving around the “extra factor”. To this end, we consider viewpoints that most actively resist the possibility and desirability of trusting AI systems before turning to the analysis of the most prominent advocates of it. Finally, we take up the main conclusions of the previous sections and briefly point at issues that remain open and need further attention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2025-02-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00843-2
Citations
21
Primary Topic
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
52.10

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trust and Trustworthiness in AI

Giorgia Pozzi, Juan M. Durán
21 citations
Philosophy & Technology
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
52.10
article

Trust and Trustworthiness in AI

Giorgia Pozzi, Juan M. Durán
article en
21 citations

Abstract

Abstract Achieving trustworthy AI is increasingly considered an essential desideratum to integrate AI systems into sensitive societal fields, such as criminal justice, finance, medicine, and healthcare, among others. For this reason, it is important to spell out clearly its characteristics, merits, and shortcomings. This article is the first survey in the specialized literature that maps out the philosophical landscape surrounding trust and trustworthiness in AI. To achieve our goals, we proceed as follows. We start by discussing philosophical positions on trust and trustworthiness, focusing on interpersonal accounts of trust. This allows us to explain why trust, in its most general terms, is to be understood as reliance plus some “extra factor”. We then turn to the first part of the definition provided, i.e., reliance, and analyze two opposing approaches to establishing AI systems’ reliability. On the one hand, we consider transparency and, on the other, computational reliabilism . Subsequently, we focus on debates revolving around the “extra factor”. To this end, we consider viewpoints that most actively resist the possibility and desirability of trusting AI systems before turning to the analysis of the most prominent advocates of it. Finally, we take up the main conclusions of the previous sections and briefly point at issues that remain open and need further attention.

Philosophy & TechnologyVol. 38(1)
Delft University of Technology (NL)
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
52.10
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.