Can robots be trustworthy? Reflections about responsive robots and trust as a human capability
This academic position paper critically examines the concept of trust and trustworthiness regarding social robots used in healthcare and caregiving contexts. The authors utilize a phenomenological-anthropological approach to analyze human responsivity and argue that viewing trust merely as a design feature or transaction is insufficient. They conclude that because robots lack true ethical responsibility and moral agency, designing them to be excessively trust-inciting risks deceptive manipulation of vulnerable populations.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, ethicists, and AI developers should read this to understand the philosophical and ethical limits of engineering trust into social robots.
What the document contains
The article addresses the conceptualization of trust and trustworthiness in human-robot interaction, particularly for socially assistive robots in care settings. It evaluates EU guidelines for trustworthy AI, analyzes the phenomenological structure of responsivity, and discusses the ethical risks of anthropomorphizing machines.
The document does not provide legally binding regulations, explicit legislative proposals, technical specifications, or empirical safety standards for building commercial robots.
- Trust is a multidimensional capability rooted in the human phenomenon of responsivity rather than a simple transactional design parameter.
- Social robots in care exhibit constructed responsiveness and virtual responsivity, which can elicit unwarranted human trust.
- Current regulatory guidelines like the EU HLEG for AI treat trust and trustworthiness primarily as operational risk-reduction tools rather than deep ethical commitments.
- Designing robots to be overly trust-inciting can lead to deception and moral harms because machines lack genuine moral agency and a sense of responsibility.
· Abstract · Introduction · Social robots and the need for trust · Guidelines for trust and trustworthiness with respect to AI · Trust in technology and trust in robots: conceptual discussion · Responsivity and the machinic other: a preliminary phenomenological-anthropological analysis of trust in social robots in care · Ethical implications of trusting robots
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Thus, it is also still the developer who should guarantee and (publicly) testify to the user and the community that these guidelines are met.
Guidelines for trust and trustworthiness with respect to AI
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
n/a
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Treating someone with dignity means respecting the capacity for responsivity of the person as an actual potential.
Ethical implications of trusting robots
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
The robot is trustworthy if the constructed responsiveness is not used to deprive patients of their claim to dignified care and if the limitations of the robot’s ‘virtual responsiveness’ are being made transparent to the patient.
Ethical implications of trusting robots
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
n/a
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
n/a
screening score · 2026-10-24