PreprintCited by 4Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsEthics and Social Impacts of AILogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Justifying our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach

Open access
Ferrario, Andrea·2023·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

We address an open problem in the epistemology of artificial intelligence (AI), namely, the justification of the epistemic attitudes we have towards the trustworthiness of AI systems. We start from a key consideration: the trustworthiness of an AI is a time-relative property of the system, with two distinct facets. One is the actual trustworthiness of the AI, and the other is the perceived trustworthiness of the system as assessed by its users while interacting with it. We show that credences, namely, beliefs we hold with a degree of confidence, are the appropriate attitude for capturing the facets of trustworthiness of an AI over time. Then, we introduce a reliabilistic account providing justification to the credence in the trustworthiness of AI, which we derive from Tang’s probabilistic theory of justified credence. Our account stipulates that a credence in the trustworthiness of an AI system is justified if and only if it is caused by an assessment process that tends to result in a high proportion of credences for which the actual and perceived trustworthiness of the AI are calibrated. Our approach informs research on human-AI interactions and trustworthy AI by providing actionable recommendations on how to measure the reliability of the process through which users perceive the trustworthiness of the system and its calibration to the actual levels of trustworthiness of the AI. It also allows investigating the relation between reliability and the appropriate reliance on the system.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4524678

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For an AI system, its accuracy, technical robustness, and objective trustworthiness are properties that may support its successful appropriation by human users.

    “For the AI system, its accuracy, technical robustness (e.g., its robustness against perturbations of input data that may disproportionately affect its predictions), and, more in general, its objective trustworthiness (Ferrario, 2023), are properties that may support its successful appropriation by human users.”

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ferrario, A.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Ferrario, Andrea
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385449938
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Keywords
trustworthy AI, epistemology of artificial intelligence, reliabilism, perceived trustworthiness, human-AI interaction, epistemic justification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review