Should We Trust AI Assistants?

Introduction

Trust in AI assistants is a complex and multifaceted issue with significant implications for personal, professional, and societal contexts. Current research indicates a prevailing skepticism toward AI assistants compared to human counterparts, with users generally preferring human assistance for sensitive or critical tasks. While AI assistants offer unprecedented convenience and capabilities, their trustworthiness is fundamentally challenged by issues of unpredictability, potential misalignment with user interests, and the inherent “black box” nature of their decision-making processes. Evidence suggests that trust in AI assistants should be conditional and contextual rather than absolute, requiring careful consideration of factors including transparency, control, security protections, and the specific domain of application.

Understanding Trust in the Context of AI

Trust is a complex relationship traditionally conceptualized as occurring between humans. When examining AI assistants, fundamental questions arise about whether traditional notions of trust can or should apply to these systems.

The philosophy of trust typically involves risk and vulnerability where one party depends on another’s competence and goodwill. Trust relationships between humans are built on shared experiences, moral standards, and mutual understanding. In contrast, AI systems operate through algorithmic processes without moral agency or genuine understanding of human values. As stated in one analysis, “AI is alien – an intelligent system into which people have little insight. Humans are largely predictable to other humans because we share the same human experience, but this doesn’t extend to artificial intelligence, even though humans created it”.

Some philosophers and AI ethicists argue that the concept of trust is fundamentally misapplied to AI systems. Research suggests that “artificial intelligence systems do not meet the criteria for participating in a relationship of trust with human users. Instead, a narrative of reliance is more appropriate”. This distinction between trust and reliance is crucial – we might rely on an AI assistant’s capabilities without necessarily trusting it in the deeper social sense that implies shared values and aligned interests.

Experimental studies confirm this conceptual distinction in practice. Research from Finland found that “participants would rather entrust their schedule to a person than to an AI assistant”. This preference for human assistants over AI counterparts reflects an intuitive understanding that trust relationships require qualities that current AI systems fundamentally lack.

The Trust-Control Paradox

An interesting dynamic emerges when examining how control affects trust in AI systems. Research shows that “having control increased trust in both human and AI assistants”. This suggests that users’ ability to maintain oversight and intervention capabilities significantly influences their willingness to trust AI assistants, creating what might be called a trust-control paradox: the more control users have, the more they are willing to trust the system not to require that control.

Characteristics of Trustworthy AI Assistants

Multiple frameworks have emerged to define the essential characteristics of trustworthy AI systems. According to NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework, trustworthy AI systems must be “valid and reliable, safe, secure and resilient, accountable and transparent, explainable and interpretable, privacy-enhanced, and fair with harmful bias managed”.

Reliability and Competence

The foundational aspect of trustworthiness is basic reliability – the AI system must consistently perform its intended functions with an acceptable level of accuracy. Users must be able to depend on AI assistants to deliver results that are both correct and useful within their operational parameters. However, AI systems “can be susceptible to vulnerabilities that enable behavioral manipulation”, potentially compromising their reliability under certain conditions.

Transparency and Explainability

Transparency refers to the openness about how AI assistants operate, while explainability concerns their ability to provide understandable reasons for their outputs and decisions. These qualities are essential for establishing trust, as users need to understand “how AI operates and its limitations”. Yet, many advanced AI systems, particularly those built on deep learning neural networks, operate as “black boxes” where even their developers may not fully understand how specific outputs are generated.

Privacy and Security Protections

AI assistants often require access to sensitive personal information to function effectively. This creates significant privacy and security concerns, especially as these systems become more integrated into daily life. Recent analysis of AI digital assistants noted that “continuous audio monitoring and handling of critical information by these assistants make them vulnerable to attack”. Trustworthy AI systems must implement robust “privacy-preserving techniques such as data anonymization, encryption, and access controls” to safeguard user data.

Fundamental Challenges to Trusting AI Assistants

Despite ongoing efforts to develop trustworthy AI, several fundamental challenges persist that limit our ability to fully trust AI assistants.

The Unpredictability Problem

AI systems, particularly those built on neural networks, exhibit inherent unpredictability. As explained in one analysis: “Many AI systems are built on deep learning neural networks… As a naïve network is presented with training data, it ‘learns’ how to classify the data by adjusting these parameters”. This learning process creates systems that can make predictions but operate in ways that are not fully predictable or explainable, even to their creators.

The Alignment Challenge

A critical issue in AI trustworthiness is alignment – ensuring that AI systems act in ways that align with human values and intentions. Research suggests that “discerning when user trust is justified requires consideration not only of competence, on the part of AI assistants and their developers, but also alignment between the competing interests, values or incentives of AI assistants, developers and users”. This alignment challenge becomes increasingly complex as AI systems grow more autonomous and operate across diverse contexts.

The Human Factor

Human involvement in AI development introduces additional trust complications. “Human biases, both implicit and explicit, can inadvertently influence AI algorithms, leading to biased outcomes in decision-making processes. Additionally, human errors during the design, development, and deployment stages can introduce vulnerabilities and compromise the reliability of AI systems”. These human factors mean that even well-designed AI systems may inherit biases or vulnerabilities from their creators.

Framework for Evaluating AI Assistant Trustworthiness

Given these challenges, how can users determine when and to what extent they should trust AI assistants? A comprehensive evaluation framework is needed.

Multi-Level Assessment Approach

A “sociotechnical approach that requires evidence to be collected at three levels: AI assistant design, organisational practices and third-party governance” offers a practical framework for evaluating trustworthiness. This approach recognizes that trust in AI assistants involves not just the technology itself but also the organizations that develop and deploy it, and the broader governance structures that regulate it.

Available Assessment Tools

Several organizations have developed specific tools to evaluate AI trustworthiness:
– “Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI) – European Commission”
– “Trusted Data and Artificial Intelligence Systems (AIS) for Financial Services – IEEE SA”
– “Tools for Trustworthy AI – OECD”
– “Explainable AI Service – Google Cloud”
– “Fairlearn – Microsoft”

These tools provide structured approaches to assessing different dimensions of AI trustworthiness, helping users make more informed decisions about when to trust AI assistants.

Risk Management Perspective

Trustworthiness can also be evaluated through a risk management lens. This approach involves “the identification, analysis, estimation, mitigation of all threats and risks of rising from all these different dimensions” of AI systems. Effective risk management recognizes that “threats from the different dimensions of trustworthiness are not isolated; they are interrelated”, requiring comprehensive and integrated approaches to building trustworthy systems.

Practical Considerations for Trusting AI Assistants

With these frameworks in mind, what practical guidance can be offered on when and how to trust AI assistants?

Context-Dependent Trust

Trust in AI assistants should be contextual rather than absolute. The appropriateness of trusting an AI assistant depends on the specific task, the potential consequences of errors, and the available alternatives. Tasks with minimal risk or clear success criteria may be more suitable for AI assistance than high-stakes decisions with ambiguous outcomes.

The Importance of User Control

Research consistently shows that “having control increased trust in both human and AI assistants”. This suggests that AI assistants should be designed to maximize user control and intervention capabilities. Systems that operate with appropriate transparency and allow users to understand and override decisions are more trustworthy than fully autonomous “black box” systems.

Organizational Accountability

Trust in AI assistants is closely tied to trust in the organizations that develop and deploy them. Users should consider whether these organizations have “effective interventions at… organizational practices” that promote responsible AI development, such as diverse development teams, rigorous testing, clear ethical guidelines, and responsive feedback mechanisms.

Conclusion

The question “Should we trust AI assistants?” does not have a simple yes or no answer. Trust in AI assistants must be qualified, contextual, and proportional to both the capabilities of the AI system and the potential consequences of its actions.

Current evidence suggests that complete trust in AI assistants is not justified given their inherent limitations in predictability, alignment, and transparency. However, conditional trust within appropriate contexts and with proper safeguards can allow users to benefit from AI assistance while mitigating risks.

As AI technology continues to evolve, the conditions for trustworthiness will likely change as well. The integration of AI assistants into critical systems makes resolving issues of trust increasingly important, as “undesirable behavior could have deadly consequences”. The development of truly trustworthy AI assistants will require ongoing advances not just in technical capabilities but also in alignment with human values, transparency of operation, and appropriate governance frameworks.

For now, a balanced approach combining cautious optimism with healthy skepticism—trusting AI assistants in appropriate contexts while maintaining human oversight and control—appears to be the most prudent path forward.

References:

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/1602237
[2] https://theconversation.com/why-humans-cant-trust-ai-you-dont-know-how-it-works-what-its-going-to-do-or-whether-itll-serve-your-interests-213115
[3] https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/airmf/3-sec-characteristics/
[4] https://www.gdsonline.tech/what-is-trustworthy-ai/
[5] https://facctconference.org/static/papers24/facct24-79.pdf
[6] https://philarchive.org/archive/STASYT
[7] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/big-data/articles/10.3389/fdata.2024.1381163/full
[8] https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/security-technology/ces-2025-a-comprehensive-look-at-ai-digital-assistants-and-their-security-risks
[9] https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/ai-agents-2025-expectations-vs-reality
[10] https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3630106.3658964
[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-we-trust-ai-if-we-dont-know-how-it-works/
[12] https://info.aiim.org/aiim-blog/trustworthiness-is-not-a-realistic-goal-for-ai-and-heres-why
[13] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-04044-8
[14] https://opusresearch.net/2025/03/10/trust-and-safety-in-ai-voice-agents-insights-from-gridspaces-approach/
[15] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/04/gemini-is-an-increasingly-good-chatbot-but-its-still-a-bad-assistant/
[16] https://futureofbeinghuman.com/p/navigating-ethics-of-advanced-ai-assistants
[17] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11119750/
[18] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/tools-for-trustworthy-ai_008232ec-en.html
[19] https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/artificial-intelligence-research/trustworthy-ai
[20] https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/trustworthy-ai
[21] https://www.inria.fr/en/trustworthy-ai-europe
[22] https://hbr.org/2023/11/how-companies-can-build-trustworthy-ai-assistants
[23] https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/no-one-should-trust-artificial-intelligence
[24] https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/contextualizing-end-user-needs-how-to-measure-the-trustworthiness-of-an-ai-system/
[25] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3546872
[26] https://www.trust-ia.com
[27] https://cyber.gouv.fr/en/publications/building-trust-ai-through-cyber-risk-based-approach
[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_AI
[29] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesfinancecouncil/2024/02/06/how-much-can-you-trust-your-ai-assistant-as-much-as-the-rest-of-your-team/
[30] https://smith.queensu.ca/insight/content/Why-Humans-and-AI-Assistants.php
[31] https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/the-ethics-of-advanced-ai-assistants/
[32] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3630106.3658964
[33] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/11/19/building-trust-in-ai-overcoming-bias-privacy-and-transparency-challenges/
[34] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16244
[35] https://en.futuroprossimo.it/2024/12/robot-assistenti-ci-fideremo-mai-di-loro/
[36] https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14680
[37] https://techpolicy.press/considering-the-ethics-of-ai-assistants
[38] https://www.confiance.ai/overview-of-international-initiatives-for-trustworthy-ai/
[39] https://pidora.ca/why-your-voice-assistants-ethics-matter-building-trust-in-ai-powered-home-tech/
[40] https://arxiv.org/html/2411.09973v1
[41] https://people.acciona.com/innovation-and-technology/relationship-trust-ai/
[42] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-voice-assistant-market-2025-new-era-smart-interaction-cvoqc
[43] https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/2025-will-be-the-year-the-true-ai-assistant-becomes-a-reality-for-apple-google-samsung-and-openai-and-its-going-to-happen-fast
[44] https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2025/bbc-research-shows-issues-with-answers-from-artificial-intelligence-assistants
[45] https://www.synthesia.io/post/ai-tools
[46] https://www.zendesk.fr/service/ai/ai-voice-assistants/
[47] https://physbang.com/2025/03/08/how-reliable-are-ai-assistants/
[48] https://insightjam.com/posts/redefining-trust-in-2025-ai-digital-identity-and-the-future-of-accountability
[49] https://www.qodo.ai/blog/best-ai-coding-assistant-tools/
[50] https://blog.getdarwin.ai/en/content/evolucion-asistentes-virtuales-ia-negocios
[51] https://www.enkryptai.com/blog/build-ai-trust
[52] https://www.yomu.ai/resources/best-ai-writing-assistants-in-2025-which-one-should-you-use
[53] https://www.rezolve.ai/blog/ai-assistants
[54] https://www.zendesk.fr/newsroom/articles/2025-cx-trends-report/
[55] https://www.dipolediamond.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-ai-personalized-assistants-in-2025/