
Share
As AI infiltrates every aspect of life, maintaining trust becomes more complex, raising questions about accountability and reliability in a world where machines make crucial decisions.
Every day, we place our trust in countless systems and individuals to keep us safe and functional. From the alarm that wakes us up to the food we eat, from the driver who takes us to the airport to the pilot who flies us across continents-trust is the invisible glue that holds society together. Without it, our daily lives would be fraught with constant anxiety and paralysis.
But as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into these systems, a new layer of complexity emerges. The trust we place in AI is fundamentally different from the interpersonal trust we have in our friends or colleagues. This distinction is crucial for understanding the ethical and regulatory challenges that lie ahead.
Trust can be broadly categorized into two types: interpersonal trust and social trust. Interpersonal trust involves a deeper, more personal connection. When you trust a friend, it’s not just about their actions; it's about their character, intentions, and the history of your relationship. You believe they will act in your best interest because you know them as a person.
Social trust, on the other hand, is less intimate but equally important. It’s the trust we place in strangers or systems based on their reliability and predictability. For example, when you use an ATM, you don’t need to know the intentions of every bank employee; you just need to believe that the machine will work as expected.
The rise of AI introduces a significant challenge: we often confuse interpersonal trust with social trust when it comes to technology. We might anthropomorphize AI, attributing human-like qualities and intentions to algorithms. This can lead to what Bruce Schneier calls a "fundamental category error." We start treating AI systems as friends or companions rather than as tools designed to serve us.

This confusion is not lost on the corporations that develop and control these AI systems. They may exploit our tendency to anthropomorphize technology to build a false sense of trust. For instance, a chatbot might use friendly language and emoticons to make you feel more comfortable, even though it's just following pre-programmed rules.
The risk here is that these companies are not inherently trustworthy. Their primary goal is often profit, and they may prioritize their interests over the well-being of users. This can lead to significant ethical issues, from privacy violations to biased decision-making.
Given the potential for misuse, it’s clear that government has a crucial role in creating an environment where AI can be trusted. Regulation is not about controlling AI itself but about regulating the organizations that control and use AI. This means setting standards for transparency, accountability, and fairness.
For example, regulations could require companies to disclose how their AI systems make decisions, ensuring that these processes are transparent and understandable. They could also mandate regular audits to check for biases and ensure that AI systems are acting in the public interest.
Trust is the foundation of a functioning society, but it must be built on solid ground. As AI becomes more prevalent, we need to be vigilant about the type of trust we place in these systems. By understanding the difference between interpersonal and social trust, and by advocating for robust regulation, we can ensure that AI serves us ethically and effectively.
Tags
Original Sources
About the author
Amara's entry point into AI was an epidemiology role at a London research hospital, where she spent five years studying how digital health tools reached — or conspicuously failed to reach — underserved communities. Watching early algorithmic systems in healthcare quietly entrench existing inequalities, she redirected her career toward the systemic consequences of AI at scale. She covers AI through an unflinching lens: who benefits, who bears the cost, and what evidence actually says versus what the press release claims. Her writing is calm and precise, but she doesn't mistake balance for neutrality.
More from The Steward →This Week's Edition
5 December 2023
133 articles
Related Articles
Related Articles
More Stories