Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Ethics and Information Technology
Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology 1/2011

01.03.2011 | Original Paper

Developing artificial agents worthy of trust: “Would you buy a used car from this artificial agent?”

verfasst von: F. S. Grodzinsky, K. W. Miller, M. J. Wolf

Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology | Ausgabe 1/2011

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

There is a growing literature on the concept of e-trust and on the feasibility and advisability of “trusting” artificial agents. In this paper we present an object-oriented model for thinking about trust in both face-to-face and digitally mediated environments. We review important recent contributions to this literature regarding e-trust in conjunction with presenting our model. We identify three important types of trust interactions and examine trust from the perspective of a software developer. Too often, the primary focus of research in this area has been on the artificial agents and the humans they may encounter after they are deployed. We contend that the humans who design, implement, and deploy the artificial agents are crucial to any discussion of e-trust and to understanding the distinctions among the concepts of trust, e-trust and face-to-face trust.
Vorheriger Artikel Studying the ethical implications of e-trust in the lab
Nächster Artikel e-Trust and reputation

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
See the overview article by Benbasat et al. (2008) for a list of influences and reflections on state of the art research in this area.
 
2
We will not replay the arguments behind this analysis here; interested readers should see Taddeo’s paper, as well as ideas she criticizes in Luhmann (1979), Gambetta (1998), Nissenbaum (2001), Tuomela and Hofmann (2003), Weckert (2005).
 
3
In the information systems literature this type of risk is referred to as channel, web, or Internet risk.
 
4
See Floridi and Sanders (2004).
 
5
See Grodzinsky et al. (2008).
 
6
The idea that AAs “make decisions” is philosophically controversial; we are not claiming here that AAs make decisions in a way that is identical or comparable to the way humans make decisions. Instead, we are only positing that the program running inside an AA will take different courses of actions based on decision control structures and the state of the computation at a given moment. Although such issues as whether AAs have free will are fascinating and are related to trust, we explicitly are not exploring those issues in this paper.
 
7
See Castelfranchi and Falcone and the work of the Unit of AI Cognitive Modelling and Interaction, National Research Council Institute of Psychology, Rome, Italy (2001).
 
8
See Kloth (2009).
 
9
There are both theoretical and practical reasons why neural net decisions are unlikely to be easily explained to humans. For example, systems that can give a comprehensible explanation to a human of why a decision was reached are far more resource intensive than systems that are less expressive about their reasoning (Greiner et al. 2001).
 
10
The learning that can take place studying AA trust decisions will be facilitated if that software is available widely. Thus, source code available software (including Free Software) will be of particular interest.
 
11
This expanded model was first developed in Grodzinsky et al. (2010).
 
12
See Miller et al. (2009).
 
Literatur
Baier, A. (Jan, 1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–260.
Benbasat, I., Gefen, D., & Pavlou, P. A. (Spring, 2008). Special issue: Trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 5–11.
Bok, S. (1978). Lying (p. 31n). Pantheon Books: New York.
Bruemmer, D., Few, D., Goodrich, M., Norman, D., Sarkar, N., Scholtz, J., Smart, B., Swinson, M. L., & Yanco, H. (2004). How to trust robots further than we can throw them. In CHI ‘04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vienna, Austria, April 24–29, 2004). CHI ’04 (pp. 1576–1577). ACM, New York.
Clarke, E. M. & Wing, J. M. (Dec, 1996) Formal methods: state of the art and future directions. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(4), 626–643.
DiSalvo, C. F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., & Kiesler, S. (2002). All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (London, England, June 25–28, 2002). DIS ’02 (pp. 321–326). ACM, New York, NY.
Durante, M. (2008). What model of trust for networked cooperation? Online social trust in the production of common goods (knowledge sharing). In Ethicomp 2008, conference proceedings (pp 211–223). University of Pavia, Mantua, Italy.
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K., & Wolf, M. J. (2010) Toward a model of trust and e-trust processes using object-oriented methodologies. In Ethicomp 2010 Proceedings, April 14–16, 2010.
Floridi, L. & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.
Fule, P. & Roddick, J. F. (2004) Detecting privacy and ethical sensitivity in data mining results. In Proceedings of the 27th Australasian conference on computer science—Vol. 26 (Dunedin, New Zealand). Estivill-Castro, Ed. ACM International conference proceeding series (vol. 56, pp. 159–166). Australian Computer Society, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Gambetta, D. (1998) Can we trust trust? In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. D. Gambetta, Ed. (pp. 213–238).
Greiner, R., Darken, C., & Santoso, N. I. (Mar, 2001) Efficient reasoning. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(1), 1–30.
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K., & Wolf, M. J. (2008). The ethics of designing artificial agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 10, 115–121.CrossRef
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K. & Wolf, M. J. (2009) Developing artificial agents worthy of trust: “Would you buy a used car from this artificial agent?” In Proceedings of computer ethics, philosophical enquiry conference, June 26–29, 2009.
Gunkel, D. J. (2007). Thinking otherwise: Ethics, technology and other subjects. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 165–177.CrossRef
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley.
Miller, J. (June, 1988) Discrete and continuous models of human information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical results, Acta Psychologica, 67(3), 191–257.
Miller, K., Grodzinsky, F., & Wolf, M. J. (2009). Why turing shouldn’t have to guess. The Fifth Asia-Pacific Computing and Philosophy Conference, October 1–2, 2009.
Nissenbaum, H. (2001). Securing trust online: Wisdom or oxymoron. Boston University Law Review, 81(3), 635–664.
Schumann, J. & Nelson, S. (2002). Toward V&V of neural network based controllers. In D. Garlan, J. Kramer, & A. Wolf (Eds.). Proceedings of the first workshop on self-healing systems (Charleston, South Carolina, November 18–19, 2002), WOSS ’02 (pp. 67–72). ACM, New York, NY.
Sun, Y., Councill, I. G., & Giles, C. L. (2008). BotSeer: An automated information system for analyzing web robots. In Proceedings of the 2008 eighth international conference on web engineering—Volume 00 (July 14-18, 2008) (pp. 108–114) International Conference On Web Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.
Sun, Y., Zhuang, Z., & Giles, C. L., (2007). A large-scale study of robots.txt. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on world wide web (Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 08-12, 2007). WWW’07. (pp. 1123–1124) ACM, New York, NY.
Taddeo, M. (2009) Defining trust and e-trust: from old theories to new problems. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 5(2) April–June 2009.
Taddeo, M. (2010) Modeling trust in artificial agents, a first step toward the analysis of e-trust. Minds and Machines 20(2), 243–257.
Tuomela, M., & Hofmann, S. (2003). Simulating rational social normative trust, predictive trust, and predictive reliance between agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(3), 163–176.CrossRef
Weckert, J. (2005). Trust in cyberspace. In R. J. Cavalier (Ed.), The impact of the internet on our moral lives (pp. 95–120). Albany: University of New York Press.
Wolf, M. J. & Grodzinsky, F. S. (2006). Good/fast/cheap: contexts, relationships and professional responsibility during software development. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (Dijon, France, April 23–27, 2006). SAC’06 (pp. 261–266). ACM, New York, NY.
Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2002). Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves (Minneapolis, MN, USA, April 20–25, 2002). CHI’02 (pp. 141–146). ACM, New York, NY.
Metadaten
Titel
Developing artificial agents worthy of trust: “Would you buy a used car from this artificial agent?”
verfasst von
F. S. Grodzinsky
K. W. Miller
M. J. Wolf
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2011
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Ethics and Information Technology / Ausgabe 1/2011
Print ISSN: 1388-1957
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8439
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9255-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2011

Ethics and Information Technology 1/2011 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Studying the ethical implications of e-trust in the lab

Original Paper

e-Trust and reputation

OriginalPaper

Explanation and trust: what to tell the user in security and AI?

OriginalPaper

Trust and multi-agent systems: applying the “diffuse, default model” of trust to experiments involving artificial agents

EditorialNotes

The case for e-trust

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise