You <i>Can</i> Trust the Ladder, But You Shouldn't

Tallant, Jonathan

doi:10.1111/theo.12177

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, not all scholars agree that this is normatively accurate and argue that proper trust can only exist between agents: "People trust people, not technology" (Friedman et al, 2000). The claim is mostly that the term "trust in technology" is too weak and normatively means not more than reliance on an inanimate, but humanized object (Lipman, 2023;Tallant, 2019). So, using "trust" for describing the dependence on technology would be wrong.…”

Section: Trust In Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering the trust machine. Aligning the concept of trust in the context of blockchain applications

Pöll

2024

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex technology has become an essential aspect of everyday life. We rely on technology as part of basic infrastructure and repeatedly for tasks throughout the day. Yet, in many cases the relation surpasses mere reliance and evolves to trust in technology. A new, disruptive technology is blockchain. It claims to introduce trustless relationships among its users, aiming to eliminate the need for trust altogether—even being described as “the trust machine”. This paper presents a proposal to adjust the concept of trust in blockchain applications with the tools provided by conceptual engineering. Its goal is to propose a concept of trust, that offers more than a halo term, devoid of the normative depth that the original, philosophical term actually carries. To evaluate possible concepts of trust in blockchain applications, five criteria are proposed: These criteria ensure that the conceptual relation indeed embodies trust, thereby being richer than mere reliance, and that the chosen concept highlights the active role of the trustor. While the concepts of trust in engineers and trust in algorithms have to be discarded, institutional trust emerges as a viable candidate, given some refinements. Ultimately, the concept of trust by normative expectations and attribution is suggested to capture the essence of trust in blockchain applications.

show abstract

Section: Trust In Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering the trust machine. Aligning the concept of trust in the context of blockchain applications

Pöll

2024

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, trust relations are only possible between individual persons, however, on a generous interpretation, they also involve groups [23,56]. This view rests upon a commonly acknowledged distinction between a genuine trust and mere reliance [35,83]. The source of this distinction is often traced to the three ideas: (a) "trusting can be betrayed, or at least let down, and not just disappointed" ([4]: 235), (b) trusting is "inherently subject to the risk that the other will abuse the power of discretion" ( [33]: 507), and that therefore, (c) "trusting is not an attitude that we can adopt toward machinery" ([43]: 14).…”

Section: Anthropocentric View Of Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making sense of the conceptual nonsense ‘trustworthy AI’

Freiman

2022

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the publication of numerous ethical principles and guidelines, the concept of 'Trustworthy AI' has become widely used. However, several AI ethicists argue against using this concept, often backing their arguments with decades of conceptual analyses made by scholars who studied the concept of trust. In this paper, I describe the historical-philosophical roots of their objection and the premise that trust entails a human quality that technologies lack. Then, I review existing criticisms about 'Trustworthy AI' and the consequence of ignoring these criticisms: if the concept of 'Trustworthy AI' is kept being used, we risk attributing responsibilities to agents who cannot be held responsible, and consequently, deteriorate social structures which regard accountability and liability. Nevertheless, despite suggestions to shift the paradigm from 'Trustworthy AI' to 'Reliable AI', I argue that, realistically, this concept will be kept being used. I end by arguing that, ultimately, AI ethics is also about power, social justice, and scholarly activism. Therefore, I propose that community driven and social justice-oriented ethicists of AI and trust scholars further focus on (a) democratic aspects of trust formation; and (b) draw attention to critical social aspects highlighted by phenomena of distrust. This way, it will be possible to further reveal shifts in power relations, challenge unfair status quos, and suggest meaningful ways to keep the interests of citizens.

show abstract

“…In ‘You Can Trust The Ladder, But You Shouldn’t’ (2019) [ 21 ] Jonathan Tallant argues that, although we can trust objects, we should not. Tallant considers a thought experiment in which an inanimate object appears to be the recipient of trust.…”

Section: Trust On the Basis Of Misleading Appearancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trusting social robots

Sweeney

2022

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I argue that we need a more robust account of our ability and willingness to trust social robots. I motivate my argument by demonstrating that existing accounts of trust and of trusting social robots are inadequate. I identify that it is the feature of a façade or deception inherent in our engagement with social robots that both facilitates, and is in danger of undermining, trust. Finally, I utilise the fictional dualism model of social robots to clarify that trust in social robots, unlike trust in humans, must rely on an independent judgement of product reliability.

show abstract

You Can Trust the Ladder, But You Shouldn't

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Engineering the trust machine. Aligning the concept of trust in the context of blockchain applications

Engineering the trust machine. Aligning the concept of trust in the context of blockchain applications

Making sense of the conceptual nonsense ‘trustworthy AI’

Trusting social robots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About