Controlling system trust becomes the exclusive work of experts

Evidence

An element of Simmel’s “weak inductive knowledge” is no doubt very often present in the confidence which lay actors sustain in expert systems. There is a pragmatic element in “faith,” based upon the experience that such systems generally work as they are supposed to do. In addition, there are often regulatory agencies over and above professional associations designed to protect the consumers of expert systems—bodies which licence machines, keep a watch over the standards of aircraft manufacturers, and so forth. None of this, however, alters the observation that all disembedding mechanisms imply an attitude of trust. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 77 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Stevens embodies Giddens’s faceless commitments, but Luhmann shows system trust enables ethical abdication; Even pragmatic faith in expert systems still implies trust — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 77; System trust is easier to acquire but harder to control than personal trust (+4 more)

Related

• Even pragmatic faith in expert systems still implies trust (similarity 0.95)
• Trust in experts is trust in impersonal systems, not in individuals (similarity 0.87)
• System trust rests on expectations that most won’t test the system (similarity 0.85)
• System trust produces a compulsion to trust a system one cannot correct (similarity 0.85)
• System trust stays latent and beyond open discussion (similarity 0.84)
• Giddens describes how trust in abstract systems develops as ‘faceless commitments,’ yet notes relations of trust are always ambivalent because confidence is needed amid fundamental ignorance of… (similarity 0.84)
• Trust in abstract systems is tacit routine, not conscious choice. (similarity 0.84)
• Trust rests on structural system guarantees that relieve individuals of risk assessment (similarity 0.84)
• Most people are more inclined to trust people they know than to trust remote expertise or an abstract system, so contemporary life demands trust in science they cannot personally verify. (similarity 0.83)
• System trust survives individual disappointments that would destroy personal trust (similarity 0.83)
• In Luhmann’s framework, systemic trust is the general belief that societal systems function reliably, functioning as a mechanism that reduces complexity and enables smooth social interaction, and… (similarity 0.82)
• Modern trust takes the form of trust in specialized information processing (similarity 0.82)
• Personal trust becomes system trust under civilized conditions (similarity 0.82)
• Giddens distinguishes ‘facework commitment’ from ‘faceless commitment’ to depict the difference between expert systems and their representatives, with trust located between the two. (similarity 0.81)
• Giddens defines trust as confidence in the reliability of a person or system expressing faith in the probity or love of another or in the correctness of abstract principles, and notes all trust is… (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• System trust is easier to acquire but harder to control than personal trust #corroborates (0.70)
• Raising system trust requires mastering all earlier-described trust formation aspects. #expands (0.70)
• Even pragmatic faith in expert systems still implies trust #expands (0.60) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 77
• Protected systems can replace trust with probability calculations #complicates (0.50)
• Lay trust in expert systems founders when experts’ own ignorance surfaces #corroborates (0.50) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 316