The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Justifying our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Experts or Authorities? The Strange Case of the Presumed Epistemic Superiority of Artificial Intelligence Systems (2024) · cites this paper as Ferrario, 2023
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ferrario, A., Facchini, A., & Termine, A. (2024) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-024-09681-1 · Cited by 64
Self-citationChallenges for Computational Reliabilism in AI and Other Computational Methods
Alvarado, R. (2025) · Synthese Library/Synthese library · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03083-2_5 · Cited by 3
Manziuk, E., Barmak, O., Radiuk, P., Kuznetsov, V., & Krak, I. V. (2024) · International Workshop of IT-professionals on Artificial Intelligence (ProfIT AI) · doi:10.55056/ceur-ws.org/vol-3777/paper25.pdf · Cited by 1
Being Pragmatic About Reliance and Trust in Artificial IntelligencePreprint
Ferrario, A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5148249
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferrario, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Ferrario, Andrea
- ORCID
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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