• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

  • Articles
    • Public Policy
    • Privacy & Security
    • Human Rights
      • Ethics
      • JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
    • Climate
    • Design
      • Emerging Technology
    • Application & Adoption
      • Health
      • Education
      • Government
        • Military
        • Public Works
      • Labour
    • Arts & Culture
      • Film & TV
      • Music
      • Pop Culture
      • Digital Art
  • Columns
    • AI Policy Corner
    • Recess
    • Tech Futures
  • The AI Ethics Brief
  • AI Literacy
    • Research Summaries
    • AI Ethics Living Dictionary
    • Learning Community
  • The State of AI Ethics Report
    • Volume 7 (November 2025)
    • Volume 6 (February 2022)
    • Volume 5 (July 2021)
    • Volume 4 (April 2021)
    • Volume 3 (Jan 2021)
    • Volume 2 (Oct 2020)
    • Volume 1 (June 2020)
  • About
    • Our Contributions Policy
    • Our Open Access Policy
    • Contact
    • Donate

Never trust, always verify: a roadmap for Trustworthy AI?

August 14, 2023

🔬 Research Summary by Lionel Tidjon, PhD is the Chief scientist & Founder at CertKOR AI and Lecturer at Polytechnique Montreal.

[Original paper by Lionel Tidjon and Foutse Khomh]


Overview: Bringing AI systems into practice poses several trust issues, such as transparency, bias, security, privacy, safety, and sustainability. This paper examines trust in the context of AI-based systems, with the aim to understand how it is perceived around the world, and then suggest an end-to-end AI trust (resp. zero-trust) model to be applied throughout the AI project life-cycle.


Introduction

AI can diagnose various types of cancer, such as brain, mammary, and pancreatic cancers, providing early detection and prognosis. However, an important question arises: Can we trust AI? This paper dives into the topic of ensuring the reliability of AI systems. It examines the concept of trust in AI-based systems and identifies gaps in our understanding of what makes AI truly trustworthy. By reviewing existing approaches, the researchers propose a trust model (and even a zero-trust model) for AI. They also outline a set of essential qualities that AI systems should possess to ensure their trustworthiness.

To enhance the trustworthiness of AI models, the researchers introduce helpful tools like VeriDeep, DeepZ, RefineZono, and RefinePoly. These tools enable us to verify the reliability of AI models and ensure they meet the necessary standards. As AI continues to revolutionize industries and impact our lives, it’s crucial to address the question of trust. 

Key Insights

Can we trust AI systems? 

This paper explores the question and discusses essential steps to ensure the reliability of AI-based technologies. In today’s world, where AI plays an increasingly prominent role, it’s crucial to examine how trustworthy these systems are. This paper investigates the concept of trust in AI and identifies gaps that challenge our understanding of its reliability.

The paper reviews different approaches proposed to ensure the trustworthiness of AI systems. It also introduces a new trust and zero-trust model for AI based on ideal qualities discussed in previous studies. By building upon existing research, this model aims to redefine our perception of trustworthy AI. The context of this study is a set of 100 documents containing 100 trustworthy properties in the six continents (e.g., fairness, transparency) gathered online from reports of national/international organizations. The data sources are selected based on their reliability, recency, and diversity. The paper uses a literature review approach to examine existing approaches proposed for ensuring the trustworthiness of AI systems and identify potential conceptual gaps in understanding what trustworthy AI is.

However, there are contentious issues that need attention. Defining what trustworthy AI means poses challenges due to the lack of a unified definition. This gap necessitates further exploration. Additionally, we must consider the ethical, legal, and societal impacts of AI, which remain uncertain. To guarantee responsible AI implementation, more research in these areas is crucial. Furthermore, the paper highlights the difficulties in auditing and certifying AI systems. Their opaque nature and vulnerability to threats make it challenging to ensure their reliability. Addressing these challenges calls for continued research and innovation in the development, auditing, and certification processes for AI systems.

Are you curious to uncover the truth about trustworthy AI?

The findings of this paper will transform the understanding of AI’s trustworthiness while shedding light on the gaps that need urgent attention.

The paper introduces a cutting-edge trust and zero-trust model for AI (see Fig. 1). Building upon the ideal properties discussed in previous studies, this model lays a roadmap to foster trust in AI systems. By incorporating these essential properties, organizations can develop and implement AI systems that are transparent, accountable, and dependable. The zero-trust AI (ZTA) model consists of six components: human (trustor), AI system (trustee), Trustworthy AI (TAI) principles, Policy Enforcement Point (PEP), Policy Decision Point (PDP), and EthicsOps. ZTA PEP enables, monitors, and closes trust relationships between the trustor and the trustee. It interacts with a policy administrator responsible for establishing and/or stopping trust relationships between parties based on the feedback from the policy engine. ZTA PDP takes an immediate decision based on instructions received from the policy administrator in the ZTA PEP component.  EthicsOps ensures the continuous monitoring of these actions to identify any deviation in trust so that failing or untrusted components can be updated to move the system into a trust state.

Between the lines

In conclusion, this research summary highlights the complexities of trust in AI systems and presents a roadmap for building trustworthiness. It challenges us to question and verify AI’s reliability rather than relying on blind trust. The findings have far-reaching implications for governments, organizations, and individuals. By following this roadmap, we can navigate the evolving landscape of AI and shape a future where trustworthy AI systems inspire confidence and ethical decision-making.

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

A network diagram with lots of little emojis, organised in clusters.

Tech Futures: AI For and Against Knowledge

A brightly coloured illustration which can be viewed in any direction. It has many elements to it working together: men in suits around a table, someone in a data centre, big hands controlling the scenes and holding a phone, people in a production line. Motifs such as network diagrams and melting emojis are placed throughout the busy vignettes.

Tech Futures: The Fossil Fuels Playbook for Big Tech: Part II

A rock embedded with intricate circuit board patterns, held delicately by pale hands drawn in a ghostly style. The contrast between the rough, metallic mineral and the sleek, artificial circuit board illustrates the relationship between raw natural resources and modern technological development. The hands evoke human involvement in the extraction and manufacturing processes.

Tech Futures: The Fossil Fuels Playbook for Big Tech: Part I

Close-up of a cat sleeping on a computer keyboard

Tech Futures: The threat of AI-generated code to the world’s digital infrastructure

The undying sun hangs in the sky, as people gather around signal towers, working through their digital devices.

Dreams and Realities in Modi’s AI Impact Summit

related posts

  • The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse

    The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse

  • Creative Agents: Rethinking Agency and Creativity in Human and Artificial Systems

    Creative Agents: Rethinking Agency and Creativity in Human and Artificial Systems

  • Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learning

    Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learning

  • The Ethics of AI Business Practices: A Review of 47 AI Ethics Guidelines

    The Ethics of AI Business Practices: A Review of 47 AI Ethics Guidelines

  • AI in Finance: 8 Frequently Asked Questions

    AI in Finance: 8 Frequently Asked Questions

  • Corporate Governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Interest

    Corporate Governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Interest

  • AI Policy Corner: The Colorado State Deepfakes Act

    AI Policy Corner: The Colorado State Deepfakes Act

  • Common but Different Futures: AI Inequity and Climate Change

    Common but Different Futures: AI Inequity and Climate Change

  • Science Communications for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    Science Communications for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

  • Research summary: Changing My Mind About AI, Universal Basic Income, and the Value of Data

    Research summary: Changing My Mind About AI, Universal Basic Income, and the Value of Data

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer


Articles

Columns

AI Literacy

The State of AI Ethics Report


 

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.

Contact

Donate


  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.