Skip to content
EA Crux Project

Trust Erosion Dynamics Model

📋Page Status
Quality:68 (Good)⚠️
Importance:52 (Useful)
Last edited:2025-12-26 (12 days ago)
Words:1.7k
Backlinks:2
Structure:
📊 5📈 0🔗 3📚 0•53%Score: 7/15
LLM Summary:This model analyzes five mechanisms by which AI erodes institutional, expert, information, interpersonal, and technology trust, with quantitative thresholds showing US media trust at 24% (near critical 25% threshold) and interpersonal trust declining from 48% (2010) to 38% (2025). Trust erodes 3-10x faster than it builds, creating cascading effects across trust types.
Model

Trust Erosion Dynamics Model

Importance52
Model TypeTrust Dynamics
Target FactorTrust Erosion
Key InsightTrust erodes faster than it builds, with 3-10x asymmetry in speed
Related
Parameters
Risks
Models
Model Quality
Novelty
3
Rigor
3
Actionability
3
Completeness
4

Overview

Section titled “Overview”

This model examines how AI systems contribute to the erosion of trust in institutions, experts, and interpersonal relationships. It analyzes the mechanisms by which AI undermines traditional trust structures and the difficulty of rebuilding trust once eroded.

Central Question: How do AI systems erode trust, and why is trust so difficult to rebuild once lost?

Trust Erosion Framework

Section titled “Trust Erosion Framework”

Types of Trust Affected

Section titled “Types of Trust Affected”

1. Institutional Trust

  • Trust in government, media, science, corporations
  • Eroded by: AI-enabled manipulation, deepfakes, surveillance
  • Consequences: Governance breakdown, policy resistance

2. Expert Trust

  • Trust in professionals, specialists, authorities
  • Eroded by: AI competing with experts, AI errors attributed to experts
  • Consequences: Ignoring expert advice, dangerous self-reliance

3. Information Trust

  • Trust in media, facts, shared reality
  • Eroded by: Deepfakes, AI-generated misinformation, authentication failures
  • Consequences: Epistemic fragmentation, inability to coordinate

4. Interpersonal Trust

  • Trust in other individuals, social relationships
  • Eroded by: AI impersonation, synthetic relationships, surveillance
  • Consequences: Social atomization, reduced cooperation

5. Technology Trust

  • Trust in AI and technology systems themselves
  • Eroded by: AI failures, unexpected behaviors, opacity
  • Consequences: Resistance to beneficial AI, or paradoxically, excessive trust

Erosion Mechanisms

Section titled “Erosion Mechanisms”

1. Deepfake Reality Distortion

Section titled “1. Deepfake Reality Distortion”

Mechanism: AI-generated synthetic media makes it impossible to trust visual/audio evidence.

Process:

  • Deepfakes become increasingly convincing
  • Authentic content becomes indistinguishable from fake
  • All evidence becomes suspect (liars dividend)
  • Visual evidence loses probative value

Trust Impact:

  • Media trust: Severe erosion
  • Legal evidence trust: Significant erosion
  • Interpersonal trust: Growing concern (is this really them?)

Current Status: Early-to-mid stage; detection still possible but rapidly declining

Timeline:

  • 2020-2023: Detectable deepfakes, limited impact
  • 2024-2026: Near-undetectable deepfakes, significant impact
  • 2027+: Post-authenticity era (assuming no breakthrough in verification)

2. AI-Enabled Disinformation

Section titled “2. AI-Enabled Disinformation”

Mechanism: AI dramatically scales and personalizes disinformation campaigns.

Process:

  • AI generates vast quantities of convincing misinformation
  • Personalization makes disinformation more persuasive
  • Detection cannot keep pace with generation
  • Information environment becomes unreliable

Trust Impact:

  • Media trust: Severe erosion
  • Platform trust: Moderate erosion
  • Peer information trust: Moderate erosion

Current Status: Active and accelerating

3. Surveillance Chilling Effects

Section titled “3. Surveillance Chilling Effects”

Mechanism: Awareness of AI surveillance erodes trust in private communication and institutions.

Process:

  • AI enables pervasive surveillance (facial recognition, communications monitoring)
  • People assume they are being watched
  • Self-censorship and guardedness increase
  • Authentic interaction and trust formation impaired

Trust Impact:

  • Government trust: Severe erosion (in surveillance states)
  • Institutional trust: Moderate erosion
  • Interpersonal trust: Moderate erosion

Current Status: Severe in authoritarian contexts, emerging in democracies

4. Expert Displacement

Section titled “4. Expert Displacement”

Mechanism: AI competing with and sometimes outperforming human experts undermines expert trust.

Process:

  • AI provides faster, sometimes better answers than experts
  • But AI also makes confident errors
  • Unclear when to trust AI vs. human expert
  • Both AI and human expert trust become uncertain

Trust Impact:

  • Expert trust: Moderate erosion
  • Professional institution trust: Moderate erosion

Current Status: Emerging, accelerating with LLM adoption

5. Authentication Collapse

Section titled “5. Authentication Collapse”

Mechanism: AI impersonation undermines ability to verify identity and authenticity.

Process:

  • AI can impersonate voices, faces, writing styles
  • Traditional authentication methods fail
  • Impossible to verify identity of remote communications
  • Fundamental interpersonal trust undermined

Trust Impact:

  • Interpersonal trust: Potentially severe erosion
  • Transaction trust: Moderate erosion
  • Legal identity trust: Growing concern

Current Status: Early stage but accelerating

Trust Dynamics Model

Section titled “Trust Dynamics Model”

Building vs. Eroding Trust

Section titled “Building vs. Eroding Trust”

Trust Building:

  • Slow, cumulative process
  • Requires repeated positive interactions
  • Depends on vulnerability and follow-through
  • Takes years to build strong trust

Trust Erosion:

  • Can be rapid (single betrayal)
  • Negative events weighted more than positive
  • Cascades through networks (distrust spreads)
  • Generalized from specific failures

Asymmetry: Trust erodes faster than it builds. Estimated 3-10x asymmetry in speed.

The Trust Cascade

Section titled “The Trust Cascade”
Single Trust Failure
  ↓ (Generalization)
Category Trust Erosion (e.g., distrust one news source → distrust all news)
  ↓ (Expansion)
Institutional Trust Erosion (distrust media → distrust government)
  ↓ (Network Effects)
Social Trust Erosion (nobody can be trusted)
  ↓ (Feedback)
Self-reinforcing distrust (distrust causes behaviors that confirm distrust)

Quantitative Framework

Section titled “Quantitative Framework”

Trust level TT decay over time with negative events:

## Trust Threshold Analysis ### Critical Trust Thresholds | Trust Type | Warning Level | Critical Level | Consequences at Critical | |------------|---------------|----------------|-------------------------| | Institutional | Below 40% | Below 20% | Governance failure | | Expert | Below 50% | Below 30% | Public health/safety crises | | Information | Below 40% | Below 25% | Epistemic fragmentation | | Interpersonal | Below 60% | Below 40% | Social breakdown | | Technology | Below 30% or above 80% | Extremes | Either rejection or dangerous over-reliance | ### Current Trust Levels (US Estimates) | Trust Type | 2010 Level | 2020 Level | 2025 Level | Trend | |------------|------------|------------|------------|-------| | Government trust | 22% | 20% | 18% | Declining | | Media trust | 32% | 29% | 24% | Declining | | Science trust | 70% | 65% | 58% | Declining | | Tech company trust | 45% | 35% | 30% | Declining | | Interpersonal trust | 48% | 42% | 38% | Declining | **Note:** Estimates based on Gallup, Pew, and Edelman surveys. Definitions and measurements vary. ### Approach to Critical Thresholds | Trust Type | Distance to Critical | Estimated Time (current trend) | |------------|---------------------|-------------------------------| | Government | Near critical | Already at risk | | Media | Near critical | 3-7 years | | Science | Moderate buffer | 10-20 years | | Tech companies | Moderate | 5-10 years | | Interpersonal | Some buffer | 10-15 years | ## Trust Rebuilding Challenges ### Why Trust is Hard to Rebuild **1. Betrayal Trauma** - Trust violations are remembered longer than trust-building - Emotional weight of betrayal persists - Risk aversion increases after violation **2. Changed Baseline** - Once trust is lost, default becomes distrust - Burden of proof shifts to trustee - Every interaction scrutinized **3. Confirmation Bias** - Distrust looks for evidence of untrustworthiness - Positive evidence discounted - Negative evidence amplified **4. Collective Action Problem** - Individual trustworthiness insufficient - Need systemic change to rebuild institutional trust - Coordination difficult when trust is low **5. Generational Effects** - Those who experienced trust violation never fully trust - Younger generations may have higher baseline distrust - Cultural transmission of distrust ### Rebuilding Requirements | Factor | Importance | Difficulty | |--------|------------|------------| | Acknowledged wrongdoing | Essential | Medium | | Structural change | Very High | Very High | | Consistent behavior over time | Essential | High | | Transparency | High | Medium | | Accountability | High | High | | Time | Essential | Inherent | **Estimated Rebuilding Time:** - Minor trust violation: Months to years - Moderate violation: Years to decades - Severe systemic violation: Generations - Some violations: May be permanent within living memory ## Intervention Strategies ### Preventing Erosion **1. Authenticity Infrastructure** - Develop robust content provenance systems - Create identity verification mechanisms - Invest in deepfake detection and watermarking - Challenge: Technical arms race, adoption barriers **2. Transparency and Accountability** - Require disclosure of AI use and capabilities - Implement algorithmic accountability - Create meaningful oversight mechanisms - Challenge: Conflicts with business interests **3. Media Literacy and Epistemic Resilience** - Education on information evaluation - Critical thinking training - Healthy skepticism without cynicism - Challenge: Scale, reaching vulnerable populations ### Slowing Erosion **4. Platform Responsibility** - Hold platforms accountable for amplifying distrust - Require moderation of trust-eroding content - Incentivize trust-building features - Challenge: Free speech concerns, business models **5. Institutional Reform** - Address legitimate grievances driving distrust - Increase transparency and responsiveness - Demonstrate trustworthiness through action - Challenge: Institutional resistance to change ### Rebuilding Trust **6. Long-term Commitment** - Accept that rebuilding takes years/decades - Consistent trustworthy behavior over time - No shortcuts to restored trust - Challenge: Political/business cycles shorter than needed **7. New Trust Mechanisms** - Decentralized verification systems - Reputation mechanisms - Community-based trust networks - Challenge: May not scale, vulnerable to gaming ## Model Limitations **1. Cultural Variation** - Trust dynamics vary across cultures - Baseline trust levels differ - Model calibrated primarily on Western/US context **2. Measurement Challenges** - Trust difficult to measure precisely - Survey responses may not reflect behavior - Different definitions across studies **3. Causation Complexity** - AI is one factor among many eroding trust - Isolating AI-specific effects difficult - Political, economic factors also significant **4. Prediction Uncertainty** - Trust behavior in novel situations hard to predict - Tipping points may exist but are hard to identify - Future AI capabilities uncertain **5. Rebuilding Understudied** - Less research on rebuilding than erosion - Historical analogies may not apply - AI-specific rebuilding strategies unknown ## Uncertainty Ranges | Parameter | Best Estimate | Range | Confidence | |-----------|--------------|-------|------------| | Erosion/building rate asymmetry | 5x | 3-10x | Medium | | Current US institutional trust | 20-30% | 15-40% | Medium | | Years to media trust critical threshold | 5-10 | 3-20 | Low | | Trust rebuilding time after major violation | 10-20 years | 5-50 years | Low | | AI contribution to recent trust decline | 10-25% | 5-40% | Very Low | ## Key Insights 1. **Asymmetry is fundamental** - Trust erodes faster than it builds, making prevention crucial 2. **Cascades are dangerous** - Trust erosion in one domain spreads to others 3. **Thresholds matter** - Below certain levels, trust becomes self-reinforcing distrust 4. **Rebuilding is generational** - Severe trust violations may only heal across generations 5. **AI accelerates existing trends** - AI amplifies trust erosion mechanisms that existed before 6. **Technical solutions insufficient** - Rebuilding trust requires social and institutional change, not just technical fixes ## Related Models - [Trust Cascade Model](/knowledge-base/models/trust-cascade-model/) - Cascade dynamics in detail - [Epistemic Collapse Threshold](/knowledge-base/models/epistemic-collapse-threshold/) - Information trust failure - [Deepfakes Authentication Crisis](/knowledge-base/models/deepfakes-authentication-crisis/) - Visual evidence trust ## Sources - Edelman Trust Barometer annual reports - Pew Research Center trust surveys - Gallup institutional confidence polling - Academic literature on institutional and social trust - Research on trust repair and restoration ## Related Pages <Backlinks client:load entityId="trust-erosion-dynamics" />