Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions
2403.14680
0
0
🎲
Abstract
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our daily life through various applications, services, and products explains the significance of trust/distrust in AI from a user perspective. AI-driven systems (as opposed to other technologies) have ubiquitously diffused in our life not only as some beneficial tools to be used by human agents but also are going to be substitutive agents on our behalf, or manipulative minds that would influence human thought, decision, and agency. Trust/distrust in AI plays the role of a regulator and could significantly control the level of this diffusion, as trust can increase, and distrust may reduce the rate of adoption of AI. Recently, varieties of studies have paid attention to the variant dimension of trust/distrust in AI, and its relevant considerations. In this systematic literature review, after conceptualization of trust in the current AI literature review, we will investigate trust in different types of human-Machine interaction, and its impact on technology acceptance in different domains. In addition to that, we propose a taxonomy of technical (i.e., safety, accuracy, robustness) and non-technical axiological (i.e., ethical, legal, and mixed) trustworthiness metrics, and some trustworthy measurements. Moreover, we examine some major trust-breakers in AI (e.g., autonomy and dignity threat), and trust makers; and propose some future directions and probable solutions for the transition to a trustworthy AI.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper discusses the significance of trust and distrust in artificial intelligence (AI) systems from a user perspective.
- It examines how AI-driven systems have become ubiquitous in our daily lives, serving as both beneficial tools and potential substitutive or manipulative agents.
- The paper highlights how trust and distrust in AI can act as a regulator, influencing the rate of adoption of these technologies.
- The review investigates various dimensions of trust and distrust in AI, as well as their impact on technology acceptance across different domains.
- The paper proposes a taxonomy of technical and non-technical trustworthiness metrics, and explores major trust-breakers and trust-makers in AI.
- It also suggests future directions and potential solutions for transitioning towards trustworthy AI.
Plain English Explanation
As AI systems become more prevalent in our lives, through applications, services, and products, the issue of trust and distrust in these technologies has become increasingly important. AI-driven systems are not just tools to be used by humans, but can also act as substitutes or even influence our thoughts, decisions, and actions.
The level of trust or distrust in AI can significantly affect how quickly these technologies are adopted. If people trust AI systems, they are more likely to use them. But if they distrust them, they may be hesitant to embrace the technology.
The paper examines different aspects of trust and distrust in AI, looking at how they impact the acceptance of these technologies in various domains. For example, technical factors like safety, accuracy, and robustness can influence trust, as can non-technical factors like ethics and legality.
The paper also identifies some of the key things that can erode trust in AI, such as concerns about autonomy and dignity, as well as factors that can build trust. Finally, it suggests ways to help move towards a future where AI systems are more trustworthy.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a systematic literature review on the topic of trust and distrust in AI systems. It begins by conceptualizing the notion of trust in the current AI literature, drawing on various definitions and perspectives.
The review then investigates how trust manifests in different types of human-machine interaction, and how it impacts the acceptance of AI technologies across diverse domains. The authors propose a taxonomy of trustworthiness metrics, categorizing them into technical factors (e.g., safety, accuracy, robustness) and non-technical, axiological factors (e.g., ethical, legal, mixed).
The paper also examines major trust-breakers in AI, such as concerns over autonomy and dignity threats, as well as trust-makers – factors that can foster trust in these systems. Based on the insights gathered, the authors suggest future research directions and potential solutions to facilitate the transition towards more trustworthy AI.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on trust and distrust in AI systems, highlighting the multifaceted nature of this topic. By proposing a taxonomy of trustworthiness metrics, the authors offer a useful framework for understanding and evaluating the various factors that contribute to trust (or distrust) in these technologies.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into the empirical evidence supporting the proposed trustworthiness metrics, nor does it address potential limitations or challenges in operationalizing these measures. Further research may be needed to validate the efficacy and practical applicability of this framework.
Additionally, the paper could have explored in greater depth the specific trust-breakers and trust-makers identified, providing more context and nuance around how they influence user perceptions and behaviors. A more critical examination of the potential biases or blindspots in the existing literature on this topic could have also strengthened the paper's analysis.
Conclusion
The increasing ubiquity of AI systems in our daily lives has made the issue of trust and distrust in these technologies a pressing concern. This systematic literature review highlights the complex and multi-dimensional nature of trust in AI, examining both technical and non-technical factors that can impact user attitudes and acceptance.
By proposing a taxonomy of trustworthiness metrics and identifying key trust-breakers and trust-makers, the paper offers a valuable framework for understanding and addressing the challenges associated with building trust in AI systems. As the field continues to evolve, further research and empirical validation will be crucial in guiding the development of trustworthy AI that can be reliably integrated into our lives.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
The Journey to Trustworthy AI- Part 1: Pursuit of Pragmatic Frameworks
Mohamad M Nasr-Azadani, Jean-Luc Chatelain
0
0
This paper reviews Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and its various definitions. Considering the principles respected in any society, TAI is often characterized by a few attributes, some of which have led to confusion in regulatory or engineering contexts. We argue against using terms such as Responsible or Ethical AI as substitutes for TAI. And to help clarify any confusion, we suggest leaving them behind. Given the subjectivity and complexity inherent in TAI, developing a universal framework is deemed infeasible. Instead, we advocate for approaches centered on addressing key attributes and properties such as fairness, bias, risk, security, explainability, and reliability. We examine the ongoing regulatory landscape, with a focus on initiatives in the EU, China, and the USA. We recognize that differences in AI regulations based on geopolitical and geographical reasons pose an additional challenge for multinational companies. We identify risk as a core factor in AI regulation and TAI. For example, as outlined in the EU-AI Act, organizations must gauge the risk level of their AI products to act accordingly (or risk hefty fines). We compare modalities of TAI implementation and how multiple cross-functional teams are engaged in the overall process. Thus, a brute force approach for enacting TAI renders its efficiency and agility, moot. To address this, we introduce our framework Set-Formalize-Measure-Act (SFMA). Our solution highlights the importance of transforming TAI-aware metrics, drivers of TAI, stakeholders, and business/legal requirements into actual benchmarks or tests. Finally, over-regulation driven by panic of powerful AI models can, in fact, harm TAI too. Based on GitHub user-activity data, in 2023, AI open-source projects rose to top projects by contributor account. Enabling innovation in TAI hinges on the independent contributions of the open-source community.
4/9/2024
🛸
To Trust or Not to Trust: Towards a novel approach to measure trust for XAI systems
Miquel Mir'o-Nicolau, Gabriel Moy`a-Alcover, Antoni Jaume-i-Cap'o, Manuel Gonz'alez-Hidalgo, Maria Gemma Sempere Campello, Juan Antonio Palmer Sancho
0
0
The increasing reliance on Deep Learning models, combined with their inherent lack of transparency, has spurred the development of a novel field of study known as eXplainable AI (XAI) methods. These methods seek to enhance the trust of end-users in automated systems by providing insights into the rationale behind their decisions. This paper presents a novel approach for measuring user trust in XAI systems, allowing their refinement. Our proposed metric combines both performance metrics and trust indicators from an objective perspective. To validate this novel methodology, we conducted a case study in a realistic medical scenario: the usage of XAI system for the detection of pneumonia from x-ray images.
5/10/2024
Evaluating Privacy, Security, and Trust Perceptions in Conversational AI: A Systematic Review
Anna Leschanowsky, Silas Rech, Birgit Popp, Tom Backstrom
0
0
Conversational AI (CAI) systems which encompass voice- and text-based assistants are on the rise and have been largely integrated into people's everyday lives. Despite their widespread adoption, users voice concerns regarding privacy, security and trust in these systems. However, the composition of these perceptions, their impact on technology adoption and usage and the relationship between privacy, security and trust perceptions in the CAI context remain open research challenges. This study contributes to the field by conducting a Systematic Literature Review and offers insights into the current state of research on privacy, security and trust perceptions in the context of CAI systems. The review covers application fields and user groups and sheds light on empirical methods and tools used for assessment. Moreover, it provides insights into the reliability and validity of privacy, security and trust scales, as well as extensively investigating the subconstructs of each item as well as additional concepts which are concurrently collected. We point out that the perceptions of trust, privacy and security overlap based on the subconstructs we identified. While the majority of studies investigate one of these concepts, only a few studies were found exploring privacy, security and trust perceptions jointly. Our research aims to inform on directions to develop and use reliable scales for users' privacy, security and trust perceptions and contribute to the development of trustworthy CAI systems.
6/14/2024
🤔
Collaborative human-AI trust (CHAI-T): A process framework for active management of trust in human-AI collaboration
Melanie J. McGrath (CSIRO), Andreas Duenser (CSIRO), Justine Lacey (CSIRO), Cecile Paris (CSIRO)
0
0
Collaborative human-AI (HAI) teaming combines the unique skills and capabilities of humans and machines in sustained teaming interactions leveraging the strengths of each. In tasks involving regular exposure to novelty and uncertainty, collaboration between adaptive, creative humans and powerful, precise artificial intelligence (AI) promises new solutions and efficiencies. User trust is essential to creating and maintaining these collaborative relationships. Established models of trust in traditional forms of AI typically recognize the contribution of three primary categories of trust antecedents: characteristics of the human user, characteristics of the technology, and environmental factors. The emergence of HAI teams, however, requires an understanding of human trust that accounts for the specificity of task contexts and goals, integrates processes of interaction, and captures how trust evolves in a teaming environment over time. Drawing on both the psychological and computer science literature, the process framework of trust in collaborative HAI teams (CHAI-T) presented in this paper adopts the tripartite structure of antecedents established by earlier models, while incorporating team processes and performance phases to capture the dynamism inherent to trust in teaming contexts. These features enable active management of trust in collaborative AI systems, with practical implications for the design and deployment of collaborative HAI teams.
4/3/2024