(Re)Conceptualizing trustworthy AI: A foundation for change

Developers and academics have grown increasingly interested in developing “trustworthy” artificial intelligence (AI). However, this aim is difficult to achieve in practice, especially given trust and trustworthiness are complex, multifaceted concepts that cannot be completely guaranteed nor built entirely into an AI system. We have drawn on the breadth of trust-related literature across multiple disciplines and fields to synthesize knowledge pertaining to interpersonal trust, trust in automation, and risk and trust. Based on this review we have (re)conceptualized trustworthiness in practice as being both (a) perceptual, meaning that a user assesses whether, when, and to what extent AI model output is trustworthy, even if it has been developed in adherence to AI trustworthiness standards, and (b) context-dependent, meaning that a user's perceived trustworthiness and use of an AI model can vary based on the specifics of their situation (e.g., time-pressures for decision-making, high-stakes decisions). We provide our reconceptualization to nuance how trustworthiness is thought about, studied, and evaluated by the AI community in ways that are more aligned with past theoretical research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Artificial Intelligence
Published
2025-02-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2025.104309
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
18.93

Funders

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

(Re)Conceptualizing trustworthy AI: A foundation for change

Christopher D. Wirz, Julie L. Demuth, David John Gagne, Andrea Schumacher et al.
9 citations
Artificial Intelligence
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
18.93
article

(Re)Conceptualizing trustworthy AI: A foundation for change

Christopher D. Wirz, Julie L. Demuth, David John Gagne, Andrea Schumacher, Ann Bostrom, Amy McGovern, Mariana G. Cains, Imme Ebert‐Uphoff, Deianna Madlambayan
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Developers and academics have grown increasingly interested in developing “trustworthy” artificial intelligence (AI). However, this aim is difficult to achieve in practice, especially given trust and trustworthiness are complex, multifaceted concepts that cannot be completely guaranteed nor built entirely into an AI system. We have drawn on the breadth of trust-related literature across multiple disciplines and fields to synthesize knowledge pertaining to interpersonal trust, trust in automation, and risk and trust. Based on this review we have (re)conceptualized trustworthiness in practice as being both (a) perceptual, meaning that a user assesses whether, when, and to what extent AI model output is trustworthy, even if it has been developed in adherence to AI trustworthiness standards, and (b) context-dependent, meaning that a user's perceived trustworthiness and use of an AI model can vary based on the specifics of their situation (e.g., time-pressures for decision-making, high-stakes decisions). We provide our reconceptualization to nuance how trustworthiness is thought about, studied, and evaluated by the AI community in ways that are more aligned with past theoretical research.

Artificial IntelligenceVol. 342
NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US), University of Washington (US), University of Oklahoma (US), Colorado State University (US)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
18.93
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.