Techno-Trust and Rational Trust in Technology – A Conceptual Investigation

Abstract

Trust is essential when using technology. If people do not trust new technology, they do not accept it. If people do not accept new technologies such as autonomous ships, their development is hampered in the absence of financial support. The importance of trust brings into question the essential conceptual components of phenomena that contribute to trust. This knowledge is required for the basis of investigating trust in technology. Especially, it is important to understand why humans trust. The reasons can be intuitive but they can also be supported by rational arguments. The latter type of trust can be called rational trust. A beneficial way of considering rational trust in technology can be reached by defining aspects of technologies that should be investigated when attempting to design for trust in technology. Therefore, the basic conceptual dimensions of technology supported actions are analyzed in order to define the essential elements of rational trust in technology.

Reflections on the human role in AI policy formulations: how do national AI strategies view people?

“…Related to AI auditing, it is widely noticed that one core factor for principles to be actionable (and measurable) is that AI technology should be explainable [23,27,37,46,62,63]. Explainability 6 of AI is then again understood as an interrelation between technical solutions [23,46,63], action analysis 7 [45,54,62,90] and analysis of level of use 8 [37,63]. Together, they enable the development of different performance measurement and auditing levels so that auditing processes can respect the changing risk and task environments of AI technologies.…”

“…Emotions are central in human information processing as people decide emotionally the value of other things for themselves. In this regard, they experience new technologies as beautiful or attractive, they can trust or distrust intelligent solutions, and they may also feel competent or frustrated [77,89,90]. They can even be hesitant with applying new technologies in complex problems such as autonomous transport.…”

With Clear Intention—An Ethical Responsibility Model for Robot Governance

“…Holton (2004) argues that in the case of risk, uncertainty and exposure only exist on the level of perception, or interpretation. This is due to the fact that as with trust-we trust that a relationship, interaction or an event will have a positive outcome, but can never be sure (or it is not trust, see e.g., Saariluoma et al, 2018)-that there is no such thing as absolute risk. If the outcome of a chain of actions or events is known, then there is no risk, simply certainty of causality.…”

That Crazy World We’ll Live in—Emotions and Anticipations of Radical Future Technology Design

“…Thus the public may have a right to be emotionally drawn to the familiar soft curves and shelters, similar to Saarinen's minimalist futuristic designs, because throwing all tradition to the wind, as Marinetti (1909Marinetti ( [2016) chants, can lead to technological violence and warfare. Expressions of future technology, combined with a history of technological violence promulgated by popular culture, incite rational emotions and states of fear and anxiety about future designs that are profoundly embodied by nature( de Sousa 1990;Saariluoma et al 2019). According to the principles of MAYA (Hekkert et al 2003;Baha et al 2012), people do not accept the unknown and entirely unfamiliar, as they cannot assimilate them into their previously learned information (apperception, e.g., see Saariluoma and Rousi 2015).…”