The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Trust, credibility, and transparency in human -AI interaction: Why we need explainable and trustworthy AI and why we need it now
Open accessAbstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) has rapidly evolved to perform complex tasks across diverse domains. Despite its potential to redefine how we work and learn, generative AI’s effectiveness hinges on the extent to which it is trusted—by individuals, organizations, and broader societal systems. At the heart of this issue lie three interrelated concepts: trust, credibility, and transparency. In particular, the opaque nature of AI “black boxes,” where sophisticated machine learning algorithms yield outcomes without clear explanations, exacerbates public concern and highlights the necessity of more explainable, responsible AI solutions. Current literature and practice indicate that trust and credibility in AI are multifaceted, encompassing technical, ethical, social, and psychological considerations. This complexity is compounded in educational settings, where generative AI’s integration demands robust transparency to mitigate fear, enhance learning outcomes, and secure a social license for AI-driven interventions. Explainable and trustworthy AI stands out as a dynamic paradigm shift, offering interpretability at both model and outcome levels. This approach enables end-users and developers alike to examine the rationale behind AI-driven decisions, preserving human oversight and reinforcing user confidence. However, merely defining explainable and trustworthy AI does not ensure its adoption: the ongoing challenge lies in building AI systems that are simultaneously innovative, transparent, and robust. Moving forward, the credibility and long-term sustainability of AI applications will depend on our collective ability to integrate technical refinements, adaptive regulations, and societal dialogue. By doing so, we can harness GenAI’s vast potential as a transformative force—guided by enduring human values rather than overshadowed by unchecked power.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Bozkurt and Sharma (2024) noted that AI adoption in global universities often precedes ethical regulation.
“This pattern parallels the findings of Bozkurt and Sharma (2024), who noted that AI adoption in global universities often precedes ethical regulation”
From Ethical Concerns and Institutional Policy Responses to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education Across Sub-Saharan Africa (2025) · cites this paper as Bozkurt and Sharma (2024)
The Highlights (p. ii) call for updated guidelines, and the discussion of AI in educational processes calls for greater trust and transparency. Neither passage says that adoption in universities worldwide often precedes ethical regulation; searches for universities, regulation, and that sequence found no such statement. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soko, J. J. (2025) · Journal of the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO · doi:10.62049/jkncu.v5i1.426 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Bozkurt, A., & Ramesh C., S.
- Affiliations
- Anadolu University (TR)
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Open University (IN)
- Venue
- Asian Journal of Distance Education
- Publisher
- Asian Journal of Distance Education
- Published
- 2024-12-30
- ISSN
- 1347-9008 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W6911840346
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Asian journal of distance education (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- trust in AI, credibility, transparency, explainable AI, trustworthy AI, generative AI, human-AI interaction, black box opacity, interpretability, artificial intelligence in education, responsible AI, AI regulation, human oversight
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