Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Epistemic Trustworthiness in Generative AI: A Normative Framework for Warranted Reliance in High-Stakes Workflows

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Generative AI is epistemically trustworthy only when it simultaneously shows epistemic humility, gives users epistemic access, and resists epistemic injustice; if any one condition is absent, reliance on its outputs is not warranted.

desk verdict A careful normative framework whose non-fungibility claim outruns its support, but the case analyses and layer-explicit decomposition make it worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05602 v1 pith:PIAMIGFQ submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI cs.HC

Nimisha Karnatak , Max Van Kleek , Nigel Shadbolt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.HC
keywords epistemictrustworthinessgenerativeAIwarrantedreliancehumilityaccessinjusticehuman-AIinteractionhigh-stakes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that whether a professional is justified in relying on a generative AI output is a distinct evaluative question, separate from whether the output is accurate, fair, explainable, or trusted. Drawing on philosophical work on trustworthy testimony, it claims that a system is epistemically trustworthy only when three conditions hold together: epistemic humility (the system communicates the limits of its competence), epistemic access (users can inspect, question, and contest outputs in context), and resistance to epistemic injustice (users and affected communities are treated as legitimate knowers). The three conditions are jointly necessary and non-fungible: if any one is missing, stronger performance on the other two does not make reliance warranted. This matters for high-stakes settings such as law, medicine, and hiring, because standard accuracy, fairness, and usability metrics can all look fine while users are still being led to defer on inadequate grounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-condition framework of epistemic trustworthiness, derived from philosophical accounts of trustworthy testimony. Trustworthiness is treated as competence plus audience-orientation; second-order competence—recognising and communicating the limits of one's reliability—becomes epistemic humility, the practical-communicative side of audience-orientation becomes epistemic access, and the recognitional side becomes resistance to epistemic injustice. The framework's core structural claim is non-fungibility: humility, access, and recognition form a joint threshold for warranted reliance, demonstrated by three pairwise insufficiency cases (humility plus access without recognition, humility plus recognition without access, access plus recognition without humility). The conditions are further decomposed into testable properties—actionable and interactional limitation-signalling, verifiable claim–evidence linkage, inspectable retrieval, contestability, equal credibility weighting, and recognitional adequacy—so that the framework can serve as a layer-explicit diagnostic for where reliance breaks down.

What would settle it

A controlled study that varies only one condition at a time—for example, a fully source-grounded and contestable system that nevertheless overstates its certainty—and finds that users are still able to identify when to withhold reliance would falsify the claim that epistemic humility is non-fungible. Equivalently, showing that a system lacking one of the three conditions produces no measurable loss in users' ability to justify, verify, or correct reliance would undermine the joint-necessity claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that warranted reliance on generative AI is a property of the user–system relation, not of the output alone. A system is epistemically trustworthy when, at the moment of interaction, it gives a situated user adequate grounds to rely on, verify, contest, or withhold reliance on its outputs. The paper derives this from social epistemology by translating two components of trustworthy testimony—competence and audience-orientation—into three conditions: epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice. It argues that these conditions are jointly necessary and non-fungible, so that an interaction missing any one of them retains an epistemic failure that cannot be repaired by improving the others. Case analyses in legal citation, resume screening, legal retrieval-augmented research, and medical question answering are offered as evidence that the framework captures harms that accuracy, fairness, and safety evaluations miss.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that social-epistemological standards for trustworthy human testimony transfer to generative AI—that fluent, open-ended model outputs are testimony-like enough, and systems enough like informants, for humility, access, and recognition to be necessary conditions of warranted reliance; if that analogy gives way, the derivation of the three conditions loses its basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accuracy, calibration, explainability, provenance, and fairness remain necessary but are not sufficient: a system can satisfy all of them and still leave reliance unwarranted because it overstates certainty, blocks contestation, or marginalises a user's knowledge.
  • Composite trustworthiness scores are the wrong evaluative target; evaluation should produce a diagnostic profile showing where humility, access, or recognition fails, for whom, and with what consequences.
  • Design should add calibrated friction—interactional friction proportional to epistemic risk—that redirects users to reliability signals grounded in evidence, not to generated self-assessments of confidence.
  • A system can be accurate yet fail humility by overstating certainty about correct outputs, so improving first-order accuracy alone cannot close the epistemic gap.
  • Failures such as fabricated citations, misapplied real citations, identity-biased rankings, and identity-contingent medical refusals are best understood as relational breakdowns in warranted reliance, not merely output defects.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the framework predicts an interaction effect that the paper does not test—adding inspection and contestation affordances to a system that overstates confidence may increase harm by creating the appearance of trustworthiness, since users attend carefully to misleading reliability cues.
  • Editorial inference: the same three conditions could plausibly extend beyond single user–system interactions to multi-agent pipelines and organisational users, where the 'situated user' is a team or institution; the paper leaves that scaling question open.
  • Editorial inference: the instrumental stance suggests an operationalisable test of the framework—measuring whether users who read a system's humility and access signals can predict its errors better than users who do not—without requiring claims about whether models genuinely believe or know.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that warranted reliance on generative AI outputs requires a relational notion of epistemic trustworthiness, and it proposes three jointly necessary and non-fungible conditions: epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice. The conditions are derived from social-epistemological accounts of trustworthy testimony (competence and audience-orientation) under an instrumental stance that avoids attributing genuine mental states to AI. The framework is applied to four documented cases—Mata v. Avianca, resume-screening bias, legal RAG citation errors, and IatroBench refusal behavior—and the paper draws evaluation implications (diagnostic profiles rather than composite scores) and design implications (calibrated friction).

Significance. If the non-fungibility claim is accepted, the paper would make a distinctive contribution by shifting responsible-AI evaluation from output-centric and behavioral metrics to the relational conditions under which users may rely on AI outputs, and by connecting epistemic-injustice literature to HCI and AI evaluation in a substantive way. The case analyses are well chosen, the paper is unusually explicit about its assumptions and limitations, and it engages seriously with empirical benchmarks (Magesh et al., Wilson and Caliskan, Griot et al.). The central philosophical derivation and the proof of non-fungibility, however, are not fully supported as stated, so the contribution is currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1–§3.2] The central derivation is undermined by the tension between the instrumental stance and the agential vocabulary of the framework. Section 3.1 explicitly denies that AI systems possess belief, knowledge, or self-awareness, yet Section 3.2 derives the three conditions from Baier, Lackey, and Craig's accounts of trustworthy human testimony, and Section 3.3 defines the conditions with agential verbs ('recognise when they are operating beyond their reliable scope', 'enable users to inspect', 'recognise users as legitimate epistemic agents'). If the conditions are merely functional behaviors, the §2.2 distinction between warranted reliance and behaviourally induced reliance is threatened, because a system could emit the right uncertainty signals, inspection affordances, and inclusive language without the competence, sincerity, or accountability that give human testimony its normative force. If they require genuine epistemic agency, the instrumental stance is abandoned. Section 2.1's own acknowledgement, citing Chiesurin et al., that fluent text should not be conflated with communicative intent or belief makes this tension acute. The paper needs a positive argument that the absence of system belief, intention, and accountability does not alter the set of necessary conditions for warranted reliance, or it should moderate the claim that the framework is 'derived' from testimony-based accounts.
  2. [§3.4] The non-fungibility claim is not established by the three pairwise insufficiency cases. Each case stipulates a scenario in which the absence of one condition leaves a recognizable failure; none shows that, in general, stronger performance on the remaining two cannot repair the relation. For instance, in the H∧A∧¬R case, one can imagine very strong access and humility—including explicit flags that the evidential base may be identity-skewed—giving the user enough information to calibrate reliance despite the system's failure of recognition; whether such reliance is warranted is a substantive question that the paper does not address. Since §5.2 uses non-fungibility as the basis for rejecting composite trustworthiness scores, the claim needs either a constitutive argument that each condition is definitional of warranted reliance or empirical evidence across compensatory configurations.
  3. [§3.3 and §4.2] The unit of analysis shifts from the immediate user–system relation to affected third parties. In the resume-screening case, the epistemic injustice is suffered by the job candidates, not by the recruiter who relies on the ranking, yet the paper's central claim is about conditions under which a 'situated user' is warranted in relying on the system's output. As operationalized, R is a property of the system's treatment of evidence and communities, not of the user–system interaction in the same way as H and A. This ambiguity matters for non-fungibility: the paper should state whether a failure of R makes reliance unwarranted for the immediate user, for the affected community, or both, and how third-party harms enter the relation that the framework claims to evaluate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.4] '73/%' appears to be a typo and should read '73%'.
  2. [§1] The phrase 'first-principles account' is an overstatement given that the framework is imported from social epistemology and filtered through an instrumental stance; 'normatively grounded' would be more accurate.
  3. [§4.1] The MetaMedQA result is described as 'direct evidence' for the framework's humility condition, but the benchmark tests models' metacognitive detection of missing answers, not whether users receive actionable, interactionally sustained limitation signals; the inference is indirect.
  4. [§5.1] The deployment example appears as 'A V A-AI' with irregular spacing; also, because this evidence is drawn from a self-cited companion paper, the authors should note its provenance explicitly in the main text.
  5. [References] The reference to 'Nussbaum, M. C.; and Capabilities, C. 2011' contains a stray author token and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is derived from external social-epistemology sources; the sole self-citation is illustrative and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Section 3.2 derives epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice from external philosophical sources (Baier, Scheman, Lackey, Sosa, Craig, Fricker, Dotson) rather than from the authors' own prior results. Each condition is explicitly introduced as a translation or label for a pre-existing concept (e.g., 'We label the GenAI translation of this requirement epistemic humility'), and the associated definitions in Section 3.3 are conceptual specifications, not fitted parameters or empirical predictions. The non-fungibility claim in Section 3.4 is a normative stipulation ('We define epistemic humility (H), epistemic access (A), and resistance to epistemic injustice (R) as jointly necessary and non-fungible conditions'), and the three pairwise insufficiency cases are illustrative elaborations of that definition, not independent empirical evidence. The only self-citation, Karnatak et al. (2026) on AVA-AI in Section 5.1, is deployment evidence for a design implication (abstention legibility) and does not support the derivation of the framework; it is not load-bearing. The skeptical concern about the instrumental stance ('as if' evaluation versus agentive language) is a philosophical validity tension about whether the testimony analogy transfers, not a circular reduction: nothing in the paper fits a parameter and then renames it as a prediction, and no conclusion is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The case studies (Mata v. Avianca, resume screening, legal RAG, IatroBench) are publicly documented empirical inputs used illustratively, not outputs of the framework. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities exist because the paper is a normative conceptual contribution. The axioms are the philosophical premises and methodological choices the derivation relies on; the most load-bearing is the testimony analogy.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Epistemic trustworthiness of a source requires competence and audience-orientation.
    Foundation for the derivation in Section 3.2, citing Baier 1986, Scheman 2001, and Lackey 2008. If these are not the right constituents, the three derived conditions lose their basis.
  • domain assumption Generative AI outputs are sufficiently testimony-like that social epistemology of testimony transfers to them.
    Section 3.2 argues this translation is appropriate because outputs are fluent, open-ended assertions users treat as inputs. The entire framework depends on this analogy.
  • domain assumption First-order accuracy and reliability are assumed preconditions for warranted reliance.
    Figure 1 labels first-order competence as an 'Assumed Precondition'. The framework only addresses conditions beyond accuracy; it does not claim sufficiency when accuracy fails.
  • domain assumption Second-order competence, recognizing and communicating limits of reliability, is necessary for epistemic trustworthiness.
    Section 3.3 draws on Sosa 2007 to motivate the epistemic humility condition. This is a contested philosophical premise.
  • domain assumption Audience-orientation has two dimensions: practical-communicative and recognitional.
    Section 3.2 partitions audience-orientation into access and recognition, citing Craig 1991, Fricker 2007, and Dotson 2011. This partitioning is a substantive interpretive choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Instrumental stance: systems can be evaluated 'as if' they exhibit epistemic properties without attributing genuine epistemic states.
    Section 3.1 adopts Dennett's intentional stance to avoid claiming AI systems know or believe. This methodological assumption is chosen to make the translation possible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Epistemic Trustworthiness in Generative AI: A Normative Framework for Warranted Reliance in High-Stakes Workflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIAMIGFQ

@misc{pith2026260805602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Epistemic Trustworthiness in Generative AI: A Normative Framework for Warranted Reliance in High-Stakes Workflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIAMIGFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05602}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes professional contexts, where their outputs shape what users believe, how they reason, and what they treat as settled. This raises a central question for responsible AI: under what conditions is reliance on generative AI outputs epistemically warranted rather than behaviourally induced? Existing frameworks largely ask whether AI outputs are accurate, fair, explainable, safe, or trusted by users. These questions remain necessary, and each can contribute to warranted reliance. However, they do not directly specify warranted reliance as a distinct evaluative target: the conditions under which users are justified in treating AI outputs as inputs into their own reasoning. We argue that this requires an account of epistemic trustworthiness: what makes a system epistemically worthy of reliance. Drawing on philosophical accounts of trustworthiness as competence and audience-orientation, we develop a constitutive normative framework comprising three jointly necessary and non-fungible conditions. First, epistemic humility requires systems to represent and communicate the limits of their competence. Second, epistemic access requires systems to enable users to inspect, question, and contest outputs in context. Third, resistance to epistemic injustice requires systems to recognise users as legitimate epistemic agents and avoid marginalising their knowledge and experience. Through real-world case analyses in legal reasoning, medical reasoning, and hiring, we show how failures of epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice can produce consequential harms that standard measures of accuracy, fairness, and usability do not address on their own. We conclude by outlining design and evaluation implications for GenAI systems organised around epistemically warranted reliance rather than output correctness alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05602 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Derivation of the three conditions for epistemic trustworthiness in generative AI from philosophical accounts of com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education

    Clancey, William J. Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-83)

  2. [2]

    Classification Problem Solving

    Clancey, William J. Classification Problem Solving. Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  3. [3]

    , title =

    Robinson, Arthur L. , title =. 1980 , doi =. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4447/1019.full.pdf , journal =

    1980

  4. [4]

    New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry

    Robinson, Arthur L. New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller---Duplicate Entry. Science

  5. [5]

    Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =

    Diane Warner Hasling and William J. Clancey and Glenn Rennels , abstract =. Strategic explanations for a diagnostic consultation system , journal =. 1984 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80003-6 , url =

    doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(84)80003-6 1984

  6. [6]

    and Rennels, Glenn R

    Hasling, Diane Warner and Clancey, William J. and Rennels, Glenn R. and Test, Thomas. Strategic Explanations in Consultation---Duplicate. The International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

  7. [7]

    Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

    Rice, James. Poligon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving

  8. [8]

    Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

    Clancey, William J. Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    The Engineering of Qualitative Models

    Clancey, William J. The Engineering of Qualitative Models

  2. [10]

    2017 , eprint=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2017 , eprint=

    2017

  3. [11]

    Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

    NASA. Pluto: The 'Other' Red Planet

  4. [12]

    Philosophy of Science , volume =

    DiMarco, Marina , title =. Philosophy of Science , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  5. [13]

    Ethics , volume =

    Baier, Annette , title =. Ethics , volume =. 1986 , doi =

    1986

  6. [14]

    Engendering Rationalities , editor =

    Scheman, Naomi , title =. Engendering Rationalities , editor =

  7. [15]

    Philosophy of Science , year =

    Marina DiMarco , title =. Philosophy of Science , year =

  8. [16]

    Vera Liao and S

    Q. Vera Liao and S. Shyam Sundar , title =. Proceedings of the 2022. 2022 , publisher =

    2022

  9. [17]

    Patterns , year =

    John Zerilli and Umang Bhatt and Adrian Weller , title =. Patterns , year =

  10. [18]

    Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , series =

    Gaole He and Nilay Aishwarya and Ujwal Gadiraju , title =. Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , series =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  11. [19]

    Science and Engineering Ethics , year =

    Andrea Ferrario , title =. Science and Engineering Ethics , year =

  12. [20]

    Social Epistemology , year =

    Judith Simon , title =. Social Epistemology , year =

  13. [21]

    Human-Machine Communication , year =

    Evelyn Jonas and Esther Greussing and Monika Taddicken , title =. Human-Machine Communication , year =

  14. [22]

    Tanchuk and Rebecca M

    Nicolas J. Tanchuk and Rebecca M. Taylor , title =. Educational Theory , year =

  15. [23]

    Asian Journal of Philosophy , year =

    Christoph Kelp and Mona Simion , title =. Asian Journal of Philosophy , year =

  16. [24]

    2026 , eprint =

    Nahema Marchal and Stephanie Chan and Matija Franklin and Manon Revel and Geoff Keeling and Roberta Fischli and Bilva Chandra and Iason Gabriel , title =. 2026 , eprint =

    2026

  17. [25]

    Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pages =

    Schemmer, Max and Kuehl, Niklas and Benz, Carina and Bartos, Andrea and Satzger, Gerhard , title =. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pages =. 2023 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3581641.3584066 , abstract =

    2023

  18. [26]

    , author=

    Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. , author=. Journal of experimental psychology: General , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  19. [27]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , volume=

    To trust or to think: cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  20. [28]

    Cau, F. M. and Spano, L. D. , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01192 , year =

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dietvorst, B. J. and Simmons, J. P. and Massey, C. , title =. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , volume =

  22. [30]

    Epistemology gives a future to complementarity in human-AI interactions , journal =

    Ferrario, Andrea and Facchini, Alessandro and Dur. Epistemology gives a future to complementarity in human-AI interactions , journal =

  23. [31]

    Lee, J. D. and See, K. A. , title =. Human Factors , volume =

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16960 , year =

    Pal, Olivia and Duddu, Veda and Goyal, Agam and Goel, Drishti and Saha, Koustuv , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.16960 , year =

  25. [33]

    and Manzey, D

    Parasuraman, R. and Manzey, D. H. , title =. Ergonomics , volume =

  26. [34]

    and Wortman Vaughan, J

    Yin, M. and Wortman Vaughan, J. and Wallach, H. , title =. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages =

    2019

  27. [35]

    and Liao, Q

    Zhang, Y. and Liao, Q. V. and Bellamy, R. K. , title =. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*) , pages =

    2020

  28. [36]

    Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '26) , year =

    Raees, Muhammad and Papangelis, Konstantinos , title =. Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '26) , year =

    2026

  29. [37]

    Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations , booktitle =

    Schemmer, Max and K. Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations , booktitle =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages =

    Jakesch, Maurice and Bhat, Advait and Buschek, Daniel and Zalmanson, Lior and Naaman, Mor , title =. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages =

    2023

  31. [39]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume =

    de Jong, Sander and Paananen, Ville and Tag, Benjamin and van Berkel, Niels , title =. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume =

  32. [40]

    , title =

    Bucinca, Zana and Malaya, Maja and Gajos, Krzysztof Z. , title =. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages =

    2021

  33. [41]

    Oxford Studies in Epistemology , volume=

    Can There Be Institutional Virtues? , author=. Oxford Studies in Epistemology , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  34. [42]

    Hypatia , volume=

    Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing , author=. Hypatia , volume=

  35. [43]

    Philosophical Topics , volume=

    Disempowered Speech , author=. Philosophical Topics , volume=

  36. [44]

    2007 , publisher=

    Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , author=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  37. [45]

    2013 , publisher=

    The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  38. [46]

    Minds and Machines , year =

    Ferrario, Andrea and Facchini, Alessandro and Termine, Alberto , title =. Minds and Machines , year =

  39. [47]

    Owen , title =

    Muralidharan, Anantharaman and Savulescu, Julian and Schaefer, G. Owen , title =. Ethics and Information Technology , year =

  40. [48]

    and Paullada, Amandalynne and Denton, Emily and Almqvist, Alex , title =

    Raji, Inioluwa Deborah and Bender, Emily M. and Paullada, Amandalynne and Denton, Emily and Almqvist, Alex , title =. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM FAccT Conference , pages =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  41. [49]

    Learning from AVA: Early Lessons from a Curated and Trustworthy Generative AI for Policy and Development Research , year =

    Karnatak, Nimisha and Chatila, Mohamad and Pinz\'. Learning from AVA: Early Lessons from a Curated and Trustworthy Generative AI for Policy and Development Research , year =. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. doi:10.114...

    2026

  42. [50]

    International Conference on Bridging the Gap between AI and Reality , pages=

    Epistemic Deference to AI , author=. International Conference on Bridging the Gap between AI and Reality , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  43. [51]

    Journal of Bioethical Inquiry , pages=

    Decision Ownership and Deference to Healthcare AI , author=. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry , pages=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  44. [52]

    2025 , eprint=

    Anthropic Economic Index report: Uneven geographic and enterprise AI adoption , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  45. [53]

    and Nikzad, Afshin and Salehi, Niloufar , title =

    Yun, Bhada and Feng, Dana and Chen, Ace S. and Nikzad, Afshin and Salehi, Niloufar , title =. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713337 , abstract =

    2025

  46. [54]

    2023 , eprint=

    Ignore, Trust, or Negotiate: Understanding Clinician Acceptance of AI-Based Treatment Recommendations in Health Care , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  47. [55]

    Vera and Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer and Bansal, Gagan , title =

    Chen, Valerie and Liao, Q. Vera and Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer and Bansal, Gagan , title =. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , month = oct, articleno =. 2023 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3610219 , abstract =

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Shyam , title =

    Liao, Q.Vera and Sundar, S. Shyam , title =. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =. 2022 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3531146.3533182 , abstract =

    2022

  49. [57]

    and Tielman, Myrthe L

    Mehrotra, Siddharth and Degachi, Chadha and Vereschak, Oleksandra and Jonker, Catholijn M. and Tielman, Myrthe L. , title =. ACM J. Responsib. Comput. , month = nov, articleno =. 2024 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3696449 , abstract =

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    1989 , publisher=

    The intentional stance , author=. 1989 , publisher=

    1989

  51. [59]

    Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages =

    Whittlestone, Jess and Nyrup, Rune and Alexandrova, Anna and Cave, Stephen , title =. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages =. 2019 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3306618.3314289 , abstract =

    2019

  52. [60]

    IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society , volume=

    AI ethics principles in practice: Perspectives of designers and developers , author=. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  53. [61]

    Nature machine intelligence , volume=

    Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI , author=. Nature machine intelligence , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  54. [62]

    AI & SOCIETY , volume=

    The epistemological consequences of large language models: rethinking collective intelligence and institutional knowledge , author=. AI & SOCIETY , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  55. [63]

    Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Ignore, trust, or negotiate: understanding clinician acceptance of AI-based treatment recommendations in health care , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2023

  56. [64]

    Social Epistemology , volume =

    Inkeri Koskinen , title =. Social Epistemology , volume =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.1080/02691728.2023.2286253 , URL =

    2024

  57. [65]

    Journal of empirical legal studies , volume=

    Hallucination-free? Assessing the reliability of leading AI legal research tools , author=. Journal of empirical legal studies , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  58. [66]

    Neurips Safe Generative AI Workshop 2024 , year=

    Epistemic Integrity in Large Language Models , author=. Neurips Safe Generative AI Workshop 2024 , year=

    2024

  59. [67]

    Ethics and Information Technology , volume=

    A phenomenology and epistemology of large language models: Transparency, trust, and trustworthiness , author=. Ethics and Information Technology , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  60. [68]

    2007 , publisher=

    A virtue epistemology: Apt belief and reflective knowledge, volume I , author=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  61. [69]

    2008 , publisher=

    Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge , author=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  62. [70]

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Holistic evaluation of language models , author=. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  63. [71]

    Proceedings of the 2024 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages =

    Kay, Jackie and Kasirzadeh, Atoosa and Mohamed, Shakir , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages =. 2025 , publisher =

    2024

  64. [72]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07709 , year=

    IatroBench: Pre-Registered Evidence of Iatrogenic Harm from AI Safety Measures , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07709 , year=

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Science and Engineering Ethics , volume=

    Justifying our credences in the trustworthiness of AI systems: A reliabilistic approach , author=. Science and Engineering Ethics , volume=

  66. [74]

    Social Epistemology , volume=

    Generative AI, Quadruple Deception & Trust , author=. Social Epistemology , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  67. [75]

    Human-Machine Communication , volume=

    Disentangling (hybrid) trustworthiness of communicative generative AI as intermediary for science-related information-results from a qualitative interview study , author=. Human-Machine Communication , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  68. [76]

    Asian Journal of Philosophy , volume=

    Trustworthy AI: a plea for modest anthropocentrism , author=. Asian Journal of Philosophy , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  69. [77]

    Educational Theory , volume=

    Personalized learning with AI tutors: Assessing and advancing epistemic trustworthiness , author=. Educational Theory , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  70. [78]

    Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford , year=

    Freedom , author=. Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford , year=

  71. [79]

    Creating capabilities

    The human development approach , author=. Creating capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard , pages=

  72. [80]

    1995 , publisher=

    Value in ethics and economics , author=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  73. [81]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00507 , year=

    A statistically consistent measure of semantic uncertainty using Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00507 , year=

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives , year =

    Sterz, Sarah and Baum, Kevin and Biewer, Sebastian and Hermanns, Holger and Lauber-R\". On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives , year =. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =. d...

    2024

  75. [83]

    1991 , publisher=

    Knowledge and the state of nature: An essay in conceptual synthesis , author=. 1991 , publisher=

    1991

  76. [84]

    2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , year=

    Implementing Responsible AI: Tensions and Trade-Offs Between Ethics Aspects , author=. 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , year=

    2023

  77. [85]

    u l, B \

    Anderl, Christine and Klein, Stefanie H and Sarig \"u l, B \"u sra and Schneider, Frank M and Han, Junyi and Fiedler, Paul L and Utz, Sonja. Conversational presentation mode increases credibility judgements during information search with ChatGPT. Sci. Rep

  78. [86]

    Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Metzger, Luise and Miller, Linda and Baumann, Martin and Kraus, Johannes , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642122 , abstract =

    2024

  79. [87]

    Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making , year =

    Vasconcelos, Helena and J\". Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making , year =. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , month = apr, articleno =. doi:10.1145/3579605 , abstract =

    doi

  80. [88]

    The Dangers of trusting Stochastic Parrots: Faithfulness and Trust in Open-domain Conversational Question Answering

    Chiesurin, Sabrina and Dimakopoulos, Dimitris and Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Marco Antonio and Eshghi, Arash and Papaioannou, Ioannis and Rieser, Verena and Konstas, Ioannis. The Dangers of trusting Stochastic Parrots: Faithfulness and Trust in Open-domain Conversational Question An...

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of artificial intelligence on knowledge worker productivity and quality

    Dell'Acqua, Fabrizio and McFowland, III, Edward and Mollick, Ethan and Lifshitz, Hila and Kellogg, Katherine C and Rajendran, Saran and Krayer, Lisa and Candelon, Fran c ois and Lakhani, Karim R. Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the ...

  82. [90]

    Trust Me, I ' m Wrong: LLM s Hallucinate with Certainty Despite Knowing the Answer

    Simhi, Adi and Itzhak, Itay and Barez, Fazl and Stanovsky, Gabriel and Belinkov, Yonatan. Trust Me, I ' m Wrong: LLM s Hallucinate with Certainty Despite Knowing the Answer. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findi...

    2025 doi

  83. [91]

    and Boyd, Danah and Friedler, Sorelle A

    Selbst, Andrew D. and Boyd, Danah and Friedler, Sorelle A. and Venkatasubramanian, Suresh and Vertesi, Janet , title =. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =. 2019 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 , abstract =

    2019

  84. [92]

    Characterizing LLM Abstention Behavior in Science QA with Context Perturbations

    Wen, Bingbing and Howe, Bill and Wang, Lucy Lu. Characterizing LLM Abstention Behavior in Science QA with Context Perturbations. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.197

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    Nature Communications , year=

    Griot, Maxime and Hemptinne, Coralie and Vanderdonckt, Jean and Yuksel, Demet , title=. Nature Communications , year=. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55628-6 , url=

    doi

  86. [94]

    Minds and Machines , year=

    Alfrink, Kars and Keller, Ianus and Kortuem, Gerd and Doorn, Neelke , title=. Minds and Machines , year=. doi:10.1007/s11023-022-09611-z , url=

    doi

  87. [95]

    Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models: Assessing Robustness, Accuracy, and Toxicity for Real-World Applications

    Cecchini, David and Nazir, Arshaan and Chakravarthy, Kalyan and Kocaman, Veysel. Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models: Assessing Robustness, Accuracy, and Toxicity for Real-World Applications. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (...

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    Opinion and Order on Sanctions, 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y.) , howpublished =. 2023 , month =

    2023

  89. [97]

    Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages =

    Fan, Wenqi and Ding, Yujuan and Ning, Liangbo and Wang, Shijie and Li, Hengyun and Yin, Dawei and Chua, Tat-Seng and Li, Qing , title =. Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 ,...

    2024

  90. [98]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  91. [99]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

    Can llms express their uncertainty? an empirical evaluation of confidence elicitation in llms , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , volume=

  92. [100]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664 , year=

    Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09664 , year=

    arXiv

  93. [101]

    Proceedings of the 2024 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages =

    Wilson, Kyra and Caliskan, Aylin , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages =. 2025 , publisher =

    2024

  94. [102]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , volume=

    Understanding the role of human intuition on reliance in human-AI decision-making with explanations , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  95. [103]

    Frontiers in Big Data , VOLUME=

    Kowald, Dominik and Scher, Sebastian and Pammer-Schindler, Viktoria and Müllner, Peter and Waxnegger, Kerstin and Demelius, Lea and Fessl, Angela and Toller, Maximilian and Mendoza Estrada, Inti Gabriel and Šimić, Ilija and Sabol, Vedran and Trügler, Andreas and Veas, Eduardo ...

    2024

  96. [104]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.