Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach.

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Science and Engineering Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1007/s11948-024-00522-z
Andrea Ferrario
{"title":"Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach.","authors":"Andrea Ferrario","doi":"10.1007/s11948-024-00522-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We address an open problem in the philosophy of artificial intelligence (AI): how to justify the epistemic attitudes we have towards the trustworthiness of AI systems. The problem is important, as providing reasons to believe that AI systems are worthy of trust is key to appropriately rely on these systems in human-AI interactions. In our approach, we consider the trustworthiness of an AI as a time-relative, composite 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 the trustworthiness of an AI over time. Then, we introduce a reliabilistic account providing justification to the credences 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. This approach informs research on the ethics of AI and human-AI interactions by providing actionable recommendations on how to measure the reliability of the process through which users perceive the trustworthiness of the system, investigating its calibration to the actual levels of trustworthiness of the AI as well as users' appropriate reliance on the system.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"30 6","pages":"55"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00522-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We address an open problem in the philosophy of artificial intelligence (AI): how to justify the epistemic attitudes we have towards the trustworthiness of AI systems. The problem is important, as providing reasons to believe that AI systems are worthy of trust is key to appropriately rely on these systems in human-AI interactions. In our approach, we consider the trustworthiness of an AI as a time-relative, composite 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 the trustworthiness of an AI over time. Then, we introduce a reliabilistic account providing justification to the credences 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. This approach informs research on the ethics of AI and human-AI interactions by providing actionable recommendations on how to measure the reliability of the process through which users perceive the trustworthiness of the system, investigating its calibration to the actual levels of trustworthiness of the AI as well as users' appropriate reliance on the system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
证明我们对人工智能系统可信度的信任:一种可靠的方法
我们探讨了人工智能(AI)哲学中的一个未决问题:如何证明我们对人工智能系统可信度所持的认识论态度是正确的。这个问题非常重要,因为提供相信人工智能系统值得信任的理由是在人与人工智能互动中适当依赖这些系统的关键。在我们的方法中,我们将人工智能的可信度视为系统的一种与时间相关的综合属性,它有两个不同的方面。一个是人工智能的实际可信度,另一个是用户在与系统交互时对系统可信度的感知。我们证明,可信度,即我们持有的具有一定可信度的信念,是捕捉人工智能随时间变化的可信度的适当态度。然后,我们引入了一种可靠的解释,为人工智能可信度中的可信度提供理由,这种解释源自唐氏的有理可信度概率论。我们的理论认为,只有当且仅当人工智能系统的可信度是由一个评估过程造成的,而这个评估过程倾向于产生高比例的可信度时,人工智能系统的可信度才是合理的,因为人工智能系统的实际可信度和感知可信度是经过校准的。这种方法为有关人工智能和人与人工智能互动伦理的研究提供了信息,就如何衡量用户感知系统可信度的过程的可靠性、调查其与人工智能实际可信度水平的校准以及用户对系统的适当依赖提供了可操作的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
期刊最新文献
"Business as usual"? Safe-by-Design Vis-à-Vis Proclaimed Safety Cultures in Technology Development for the Bioeconomy. Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach. Know Thyself, Improve Thyself: Personalized LLMs for Self-Knowledge and Moral Enhancement. Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules. A Confucian Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1