skip to main content
10.1145/3442188.3445923acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 March 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Trust is a central component of the interaction between people and AI, in that 'incorrect' levels of trust may cause misuse, abuse or disuse of the technology. But what, precisely, is the nature of trust in AI? What are the prerequisites and goals of the cognitive mechanism of trust, and how can we promote them, or assess whether they are being satisfied in a given interaction? This work aims to answer these questions. We discuss a model of trust inspired by, but not identical to, interpersonal trust (i.e., trust between people) as defined by sociologists. This model rests on two key properties: the vulnerability of the user; and the ability to anticipate the impact of the AI model's decisions. We incorporate a formalization of 'contractual trust', such that trust between a user and an AI model is trust that some implicit or explicit contract will hold, and a formalization of 'trustworthiness' (that detaches from the notion of trustworthiness in sociology), and with it concepts of 'warranted' and 'unwarranted' trust. We present the possible causes of warranted trust as intrinsic reasoning and extrinsic behavior, and discuss how to design trustworthy AI, how to evaluate whether trust has manifested, and whether it is warranted. Finally, we elucidate the connection between trust and XAI using our formalization.

References

  1. David Alvarez Melis and Tommi Jaakkola. 2018. Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett (Eds.). 7775--7784. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/8003-towards-robust-interpretability-with-self-explaining-neural-networks.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Matthew Arnold, Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Michael Hind, Stephanie Houde, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Ravi Nair, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Alexandra Olteanu, David Piorkowski, Darrell Reimer, John T. Richards, Jason Tsay, and Kush R. Varshney. 2019. FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier's declarations of conformity. IBM J. Res. Dev. 63, 4/5 (2019), 6:1-6:13. https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2019.2942288Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2020. Generating Fact Checking Explanations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 7352--7364. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.656Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Annette Baier. 1986. Trust and antitrust. ethics 96, 2 (1986), 231--260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jeremy Barnes, Lilja Øvrelid, and Erik Velldal. 2019. Sentiment Analysis Is Not Solved! Assessing and Probing Sentiment Classification. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 12--23. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4802Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Emily M. Bender and Batya Friedman. 2018. Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics 6 (2018), 587--604. https://transacl.org/ojs/index. php/tacl/article/view/1464Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal, 632--642. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1075Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Diogo V Carvalho, Eduardo M Pereira, and Jaime S Cardoso. 2019. Machine learning interpretability: A survey on methods and metrics. Electronics 8, 8 (2019), 832.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Chaofan Chen, Kangcheng Lin, Cynthia Rudin, Yaron Shaposhnik, Sijia Wang, and Tong Wang. 2018. An Interpretable Model with Globally Consistent Explanations for Credit Risk. CoRR abs/1811.12615 (2018). arXiv:1811.12615 http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12615Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Dalvi, Nadir Durrani, Hassan Sajjad, Yonatan Belinkov, A. Bau, and James R. Glass. 2019. What Is One Grain of Sand in the Desert? Analyzing Individual Neurons in Deep NLP Models. In AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Arun Das and Paul Rad. 2020. Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Survey. arXiv:2006.11371 [cs.CV]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Harm de Vries, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Towards Ecologically Valid Research on Language User Interfaces. CoRR abs/2007.14435 (2020). arXiv:2007.14435 https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.14435Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Byron C. Wallace. 2020. ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 4443--4458. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.408Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jesse Dodge, Suchin Gururangan, Dallas Card, Roy Schwartz, and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 2185--2194. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1224Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Allyson Ettinger, Ahmed Elgohary, and Philip Resnik. 2016. Probing for semantic evidence of composition by means of simple classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Evaluating Vector-Space Representations for NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany, 134--139. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-2524Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Matt Gardner, Yoav Artzi, Victoria Basmova, Jonathan Berant, Ben Bogin, Sihao Chen, Pradeep Dasigi, Dheeru Dua, Yanai Elazar, Ananth Gottumukkala, Nitish Gupta, Hanna Hajishirzi, Gabriel Ilharco, Daniel Khashabi, Kevin Lin, Jiangming Liu, Nelson F. Liu, Phoebe Mulcaire, Qiang Ning, Sameer Singh, Noah A. Smith, Sanjay Subramanian, Reut Tsarfaty, Eric Wallace, Ally Zhang, and Ben Zhou. 2020. Evaluating NLP Models via Contrast Sets. CoRR abs/2004.02709 (2020). arXiv:2004.02709 https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02709Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna M. Wallach, Hal Daumé, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for Datasets. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marzyeh Ghassemi, Mahima Pushkarna, James Wexler, Jesse Johnson, and Paul Varghese. 2018. ClinicalVis: Supporting Clinical Task-Focused Design Evaluation. CoRR abs/1810.05798 (2018). arXiv:1810.05798 http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05798Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Amirata Ghorbani, James Wexler, James Y. Zou, and Been Kim. 2019. Towards Automatic Concept-based Explanations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2019, NeurIPS 2019, 8-14 December 2019, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Hanna M. Wallach, Hugo Larochelle, Alina Beygelzimer, Florence d'Alché-Buc, Emily B. Fox, and Roman Garnett (Eds.). 9273--9282. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/9126-towards-automatic-concept-based-explanationsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2015. Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun (Eds.). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Yash Goyal, Ziyan Wu, Jan Ernst, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. 2019. Counterfactual Visual Explanations (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 97), Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov (Eds.). PMLR, Long Beach, California, USA, 2376--2384. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/goyal19a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2018. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 5, Article 93 (Aug. 2018), 42 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans, Louisiana, 107--112. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-2017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Sven Ove Hansson. 2018. Risk. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2018 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior? CoRR abs/2005.01831 (2020). arXiv:2005.01831 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01831Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Katherine Hawley. 2014. Trust, distrust and commitment. Noûs 48, 1 (2014), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Lisa Anne Hendricks, Ronghang Hu, Trevor Darrell, and Zeynep Akata. 2018. Grounding Visual Explanations. In ECCV. https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09685Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Robert R Hoffman. 2017. A taxonomy of emergent trusting in the human-machine relationship. Cognitive systems engineering: The future for a changing world (2017), 137--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Gert Jan Hofstede. 2006. Intrinsic and Enforceable Trust: A Research Agenda. European Association of Agricultural Economists, 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany (01 2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attribution. CoRR abs/2006.01067 (2020). arXiv:2006.01067 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01067Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How Should We Define and Evaluate Faithfulness?. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 4198--4205. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.386Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Harmanpreet Kaur, Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Rich Caruana, Hanna M. Wallach, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2019. Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Divyansh Kaushik, Eduard H. Hovy, and Zachary Chase Lipton. 2020. Learning The Difference That Makes A Difference With Counterfactually-Augmented Data. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking Beyond the Surface: A Challenge Set for Reading Comprehension over Multiple Sentences. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans, Louisiana, 252--262. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1023Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda Viegas, and Rory Sayres. 2017. Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV). arXiv:1711.11279 [stat.ML]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Svetlana Kiritchenko and Saif Mohammad. 2018. Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systems. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, *SEM@NAACL-HLT 2018, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, June 5-6, 2018, Malvina Nissim, Jonathan Berant, and Alessandro Lenci (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, 43--53. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/s18-2005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. J. Kleinberg and S. Mullainathan. 2019. Simplicity Creates Inequity: Implications for Fairness, Stereotypes, and Interpretability. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 70), Doina Precup and Yee Whye Teh (Eds.). PMLR, International Convention Centre, Sydney, Australia, 1885--1894. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/koh17a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hana Kopecka and Jose M Such. 2020. Explainable AI for Cultural Minds. https://sites.google.com/view/dexahai-at-ecai2020/home Workshop on Dialogue, Explanation and Argumentation for Human-Agent Interaction, DEXAHAI; Conference date: 07-09-2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Olga Kovaleva, Alexey Romanov, Anna Rogers, and Anna Rumshisky. 2019. Revealing the Dark Secrets of BERT. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 4365--4374. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1445Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Johannes Kunkel, Tim Donkers, Lisa Michael, Catalin-Mihai Barbu, and Jürgen Ziegler. 2019. Let Me Explain: Impact of Personal and Impersonal Explanations on Trust in Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300717Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. David Lazer, Ryan Kennedy, Gary King, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2014. The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science 343, 6176 (2014), 1203--1205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. J David Lewis and Andrew Weigert. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social forces 63, 4 (1985), 967--985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Sarah Lichtenstein, Baruch Fischhoff, and Lawrence D Phillips. 1977. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art. In Decision making and change in human affairs. Springer, 275--324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun. ACM 61, 10 (2018), 36--43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233231Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Yi-Ju Lu and Cheng-Te Li. 2020. GCAN: Graph-aware Co-Attention Networks for Explainable Fake News Detection on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 505--514. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.48Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Brian Lubars and Chenhao Tan. 2019. Ask not what AI can do, but what AI should do: Towards a framework of task delegability. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 57--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Michael A. Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and H. Wallach. 2020. Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AI. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Ana Marasović, Chandra Bhagavatula, Jae sung Park, Ronan Le Bras, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Natural Language Rationales with Full-Stack Visual Reasoning: From Pixels to Semantic Frames to Commonsense Graphs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2810--2829. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.253Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Roger C Mayer, James H Davis, and F David Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review 20, 3 (1995), 709--734.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Carolyn McLeod. 2015. Trust. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2015 ed.), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Tim Miller. 2018. Contrastive Explanation: A Structural-Model Approach. CoRR abs/1811.03163 (2018). arXiv:1811.03163 http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03163Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences. Artificial Intelligence 267 (2019), 1--38. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07269Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. B. Misztal. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Wiley. https://books.google.co.il/books?id=q3R1QgAACAAJGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, January 29-31, 2019. ACM, 220--229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. 1997. Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors 39, 2 (1997), 230--253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Joelle Pineau. 2020. The Machine Learning Reproducibility Checklist. https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/ReproducibilityChecklist.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar, Hila Gonen, Michael Twiton, and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projection. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 7237--7256. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.647Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP Models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 4902--4912. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.442Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Mireia Ribera and Àgata Lapedriza. 2019. Can we do better explanations? A proposal of user-centered explainable AI. In IUI Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. D. Schlangen. 2020. Targeting the Benchmark: On Methodology in Current Natural Language Processing Research. (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04792 arXiv:2007.04792.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Philipp Schmidt and Felix Bießmann. 2019. Quantifying Interpretability and Trust in Machine Learning Systems. CoRR abs/1901.08558 (2019). arXiv:1901.08558 http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08558Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations ICLR, Workshop Track Proceedings. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6034Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Alison Smith-Renner, Ron Fan, Melissa Birchfield, Tongshuang Wu, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Daniel S. Weld, and Leah Findlater. 2020. No Explainability without Accountability: An Empirical Study of Explanations and Feedback in Interactive ML. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376624Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Anders Søgaard, Sebastian Ebert, Jasmijn Bastings, and Katja Filippova. 2020. We Need to Talk About Random Splits. CoRR abs/2005.00636 (2020). arXiv:2005.00636 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00636Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Robert C. Solomon. 1998. Creating Trust. Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 2 (1998), 205--232. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857326Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Gabriel Stanovsky, Noah A. Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. Evaluating Gender Bias in Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 1679--1684. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1164Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Tony Sun, Andrew Gaut, Shirlyn Tang, Yuxin Huang, Mai ElSherief, Jieyu Zhao, Diba Mirza, Elizabeth Belding, Kai-Wei Chang, and William Yang Wang. 2019. Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 1630--1640. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-1159Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Jonathan Tallant. 2017. Commitment in Cases of Trust and Distrust. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 6, 4 (2017), 261--267. https://doi.org/10.1002/tht3.259 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tht3.259Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Jonathan Tallant and Donatella Donati. 2020. Trust: from the Philosophical to the Commercial. Philosophy of Management 19, 1 (2020), 3--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Alon Talmor, Yanai Elazar, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. oLMpics - On what Language Model Pre-training Captures. CoRR abs/1912.13283 (2019). arXiv:1912.13283 http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.13283Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 4149--4158. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1421Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Scott Thiebes, Sebastian Lins, and Ali Sunyaev. 2020. Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets (10 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Erico Tjoa and Cuntai Guan. 2019. A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAI. CoRR abs/1907.07374 (2019). arXiv:1907.07374 http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07374Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Ehsan Toreini, Mhairi Aitken, Kovila Coopamootoo, Karen Elliott, Carlos Gonzalez Zelaya, and Aad van Moorsel. 2020. The Relationship between Trust in AI and Trustworthy Machine Learning Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 272--283. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372834Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2019. Algorithmic Fairness: Measures, Methods and Representations. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (PODS '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 481. https://doi.org/10.1145/3294052.3322192Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Sarah Myers West, Meredith Whittaker, and Kate Crawford. 2019. Discriminating systems: Gender, race and power in AI. (2019). https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Stephen Wright. 2010. Trust and Trustworthiness. Philosophia 38, 3 (2010), 615--627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9218-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2019. Explainable AI: A Brief Survey on History, Research Areas, Approaches and Challenges. 563--574. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32236-6_51Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                FAccT '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
                March 2021
                899 pages
                ISBN:9781450383097
                DOI:10.1145/3442188

                Copyright © 2021 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 1 March 2021

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article
                • Research
                • Refereed limited

                Upcoming Conference

                FAccT '24

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader