Generative AI and Its Implications for Definitions of Trust

Author:

Wolf Marty J.1ORCID,Grodzinsky Frances2,Miller Keith W.3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Bemidji State University, Bemidji, MN 56601, USA

2. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT 06825, USA

3. Education Sciences and Professional Programs and Deptartment of Computer Science, University of Missouri—St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA

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.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference26 articles.

1. Why we should have seen that coming: Comments on Microsoft’s Tay experiment, and wider implications;Wolf;ACM SIGCAS Comput. Soc.,2017

2. Self-modification and mortality in artificial agents;Schmidhuber;Artificial General Intelligence. AGI 2011,2011

3. The ethics of designing artificial agents;Grodzinsky;Ethics Inf. Technol.,2008

4. Simon, J. (2020). Trust in artificial agents. The Routledge Handbook on Trust and Philosophy, Routledge.

5. Developing artificial agents worthy of trust: “Would you buy a used car from this artificial agent?”;Grodzinsky;Ethics Inf. Technol.,2011

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3