Exploring expert and public perceptions of answerability and trustworthy autonomous systems

Louise Hatherall, Nayha Sethi
{"title":"Exploring expert and public perceptions of answerability and trustworthy autonomous systems","authors":"Louise Hatherall,&nbsp;Nayha Sethi","doi":"10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The emerging regulatory landscape addressing autonomous systems (AS) is underpinned by the notion that such systems be trustworthy. What individuals and groups need to determine a system as worthy of trust has consequently attracted research from a range of disciplines, although important questions remain. These include how to ensure trustworthiness in a way that is sensitive to individual histories and contexts, as well as if, and how, emerging regulatory frameworks can adequately secure the trustworthiness of AS. This article reports the socio-legal analysis of four focus groups with publics and professionals exploring whether answerability can help develop trustworthy AS in health, finance, and the public sector. It finds that answerability is beneficial in some contexts, and that to find AS trustworthy, individuals often need answers about future actions and how organisational values are embedded within a system. It also reveals pressing issues demanding attention for meaningful regulation of such systems, including dissonances between what publics and professionals identify as ‘harm’ where AS are deployed, and a significant lack of clarity about the expectations of regulatory bodies in the UK. The article discusses the implications of these findings for the developing but rapidly setting regulatory landscape in the UK and EU.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73937,"journal":{"name":"Journal of responsible technology","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of responsible technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659625000022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emerging regulatory landscape addressing autonomous systems (AS) is underpinned by the notion that such systems be trustworthy. What individuals and groups need to determine a system as worthy of trust has consequently attracted research from a range of disciplines, although important questions remain. These include how to ensure trustworthiness in a way that is sensitive to individual histories and contexts, as well as if, and how, emerging regulatory frameworks can adequately secure the trustworthiness of AS. This article reports the socio-legal analysis of four focus groups with publics and professionals exploring whether answerability can help develop trustworthy AS in health, finance, and the public sector. It finds that answerability is beneficial in some contexts, and that to find AS trustworthy, individuals often need answers about future actions and how organisational values are embedded within a system. It also reveals pressing issues demanding attention for meaningful regulation of such systems, including dissonances between what publics and professionals identify as ‘harm’ where AS are deployed, and a significant lack of clarity about the expectations of regulatory bodies in the UK. The article discusses the implications of these findings for the developing but rapidly setting regulatory landscape in the UK and EU.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of responsible technology
Journal of responsible technology Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Human-Computer Interaction
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
168 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信