The de facto situation regarding trustworthy AI is that the principles and supporting guidelines of are largely settled, from a pan-cultural perspective, and that if we build this trustworthy AI—all other things being equal—this will lead to greater AI adoption.
There are some consequences that may be drawn by AI accelerationists from this. First, we don’t need to expend resources engaging with the communities impacted by AI to determine what makes AI trustworthy for them. Instead, it is a matter of building trustworthy AI and getting that AI in front of people to facilitate AI adoption. Second, on balance, this version of trustworthy AI constitutes a societal good: real trustworthy AI mitigates harms while delivering maximal benefits. Third, if we build trustworthy AI according to these assumptions, it is not rational for people to be sceptical of AI.
And, following from that, those who raise fears among the community regarding AI adoption are both doing a disservice to that community and are not acting in a rationally-justified manner. In this paper I critique this common notion of trustworthy AI, discussing AI in the context of a plurality of world views, and critique the claims made above.
