Scholarlink

Problem <p>Trust and trustworthiness are usually highly valued in modern medicine. These phenomena are seen as components of a&#xa0;good patient–doctor relationship (P-D-R). In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), they are important regulatory reference points. However, it is not entirely clear what we mean when we talk about trust or trustworthiness in these areas.</p> Argumentation <p>It therefore seems worthwhile to explore the meaning of these terms and the implications for debates in medical ethics. It is argued here that trust involves a&#xa0;complex, noncontrolling, interpersonal attitude implying that predicating trust on nonpersonal entities—such as AI—is a&#xa0;kind of category mistake. In the context of evaluating AI, reliability is a&#xa0;much more appropriate candidate.</p> Conclusion <p>In turn, the reliability of AI should be proven and controlled in according to the idea of technovigilance, especially with a&#xa0;system view, which implies the control of humans in the loop, i.e., doctors. However, this technovigilance-related control of doctors does not undermine a&#xa0;good P‑D‑R in which trust can have a&#xa0;good place.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Artificial intelligence in medicine: trust it or (merely) rely on it?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月18日

查看全文
  • Susanne Hiekel

摘要

Problem

Trust and trustworthiness are usually highly valued in modern medicine. These phenomena are seen as components of a good patient–doctor relationship (P-D-R). In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), they are important regulatory reference points. However, it is not entirely clear what we mean when we talk about trust or trustworthiness in these areas.

Argumentation

It therefore seems worthwhile to explore the meaning of these terms and the implications for debates in medical ethics. It is argued here that trust involves a complex, noncontrolling, interpersonal attitude implying that predicating trust on nonpersonal entities—such as AI—is a kind of category mistake. In the context of evaluating AI, reliability is a much more appropriate candidate.

Conclusion

In turn, the reliability of AI should be proven and controlled in according to the idea of technovigilance, especially with a system view, which implies the control of humans in the loop, i.e., doctors. However, this technovigilance-related control of doctors does not undermine a good P‑D‑R in which trust can have a good place.