Record STMT-W6676C1Advisory

Should we Trust Social Robots? Trust without Trustworthiness in Human-Robot Interaction

Should we Trust Social Robots? Trust without Trustworthiness in Human‑Robot Interaction

Position paper ProfessionalGlobaladopted

This academic paper investigates the nature of trust and trustworthiness, applying these concepts to Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) to ask whether humans can and should trust social robots. The author argues that a paradoxical scenario of 'trust without trustworthiness' exists, where human users develop interpersonal-like trust toward artificial entities that lack the properties required to be genuinely trustworthy. Concluding that social robots should not be trusted at present due to potential harms, responsibility gaps, and unreliability of the corporations behind them, the paper highlights critical ethical concerns such as privacy, coercion, and deception.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

SpringerIndustry

Publisher

Legal forceAdvisory

Under whose authorityProfessional

Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsGeneral publicCompaniesAI developers and providers

Researchers, ethicists, and academics studying human-robot interaction, artificial intelligence ethics, and the philosophical nature of trust.

Sectors

Research and science · philosophy and technology researchCross-sector

What the document contains

What's covered

The paper examines the philosophical definitions of trust versus reliance, evaluates motives-based accounts of trustworthiness, and reviews non-properties-based approaches to human-robot interaction. It addresses the ethical implications of emotional attachment and trust toward social robots, focusing specifically on privacy, deception, coercion, and accountability.

What's missing

The text does not provide legally binding regulatory frameworks, technical standards, or specific statutory enforcement mechanisms for AI governance.

Key takeaways

Humans frequently exhibit anthropomorphism, emotional bonding, and an attitude resembling interpersonal trust toward social robots despite knowing their artificial nature.
Properties-based accounts of trust require qualities like goodwill, commitment, and responsiveness, which current social robots lack, leading to a state of 'trust without trustworthiness'.
Subjective and relational accounts explain how users create fictional overlays and treat social robots as social entities, making trust phenomenologically possible.
Ethical implications of trusting social robots include severe concerns regarding privacy, coercion, deception, and the dilution of human moral responsibility.
Because current technology and corporate practices remain unreliable and profit-driven, humans should not trust social robots at present.

Outline

1. Introduction
2. How do we Treat Robots?
   2.1 Anthropomorphism: Emotional Attitudes towards Robots
   2.2 Some kind of Trust?
3. What is Trust(Worthiness)? A properties-based Approach
   3.1 Trust and Reliance
   3.2 Three Motives-Based Accounts of Trust
4. Trusting Technology
   4.1 Non-properties-based accounts of trust in social robots
   4.2 Trust without Trustworthiness
5. Should we Trust Social Robots?
   5.1 Is Trust in Social Robots Warranted?
   5.2 Ethical Implications
6. Conclusion

Issued15 February 2025

Length12,959 words · 23 pages

FormatNot recorded

Scopeglobal

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

3/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

This paper concludes that we should, at least for now, not trust social robots, given the potential harms that can be done and the responsibility gaps that might appear when these harms are to be repaired.

Abstract

screening score · 2026-10-24

Fairness

1/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

For example, there are issues concerning bias in design (including gender and race stereotypes), work replacement, reduction of human contact, and changes in social relationships.

5.2 Ethical Implications

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Dignity

0/5

Respect for the inherent worth of persons

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Human Oversight

0/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Transparency

2/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

Deception relates to the first of Sweeney’s two conditions: being aware of the “dualist nature” of the technology.

5.2 Ethical Implications

screening score · 2026-10-24

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-24

Topics

Physical AI Governancesupporting

social_robots trust ethics human_robot_interaction artificial_intelligence