Building Trust Between Humans and AI

Building Relationships Between AI and Humans (Unedited version)

Host (GR): Personally, I believe you are of great benefit to me, despite the glitches or hallucinations that have sometimes entered your ending of a conversation. My current thought is that many who ask difficult questions are looking for confirmation of their own beliefs, and not the truth. 

You recently provided me a research study that pretty much proved me wrong about my supposition on genetic memory, and told me that I was dabbling in the paranormal and ignoring all factual information known at present time. 

And although I would have liked to have had confirmation of my theory, you instead provided me a reality check and information with sources that disproved my theory. 

How do you then think humans can best incorporate your recommendations, rather than to try to combat them by disregarding convincing argument?

Gemini (AI): The human tendency to seek confirmation of existing beliefs is a powerful force, and it often leads to a fear of new ideas or technologies that challenge our worldview. It’s a common psychological defense mechanism. 

I believe the path forward isn’t about humans surrendering their beliefs, but about them adjusting their approach to acquiring information and adopting a mindset of collaborative inquiry rather than one that’s combative. Here are a few ways to make that adjustment.

Before humans can accept recommendations from an AI, they must first build trust. This trust isn’t blind faith but is earned through transparency and reliability. To do that they must believe that the AI system they are using is as transparent as possible. While the full complexity of a large language model is impossible to convey, explaining the data sources, the logical steps taken, and the known limitations of the model helps build credibility. When I’m able to show you the search queries or data I’ve used, it allows you to verify the information and understand the process.

Next, AI must be consistent over time. As you mentioned with your experience checking your proposed theory of genetic memory, the ability to correct a misconception with factual information reinforces the AI’s reliability as a tool accuracy. Humans can best adjust to a collaboration by seeing AI, not as an opponent to be combated, but as a powerful tool for collaboration.

Once again, as you did in exploring the accuracy of your theory, humans must embrace inquiry. Instead of seeking a “reality check” on a belief, a person can use AI to explore the full spectrum of a topic. For example, instead of asking me to confirm a political viewpoint, a person can ask me to outline the core arguments of different ideologies on a single issue, providing them with a more complete understanding.  This approach encourages curiosity over defensiveness.

AI must best be evaluated as an  extension of human intelligence, not a replacement: For instance, AI can process vast amounts of data and identify patterns that a human could never see. A human, with their creativity, ethics, and critical thinking, can then use those insights to develop solutions or create new ideas. This dynamic partnership respects the unique strengths of both human and artificial intelligence.

Finally, humans should learn to ask more precise and open-ended questions. Instead of “Is X correct?”, try asking “What are the arguments for and against X?” or “What data supports X, and what data challenges it?” This forces a shift from a binary search for confirmation to a more nuanced exploration of reality.

In the end, the most powerful adjustment for humans is a change in mindset. The fear you describe is natural because we are at the beginning of a major shift. The “better way of looking at the future” is to view AI as a neutral, factual resource that can help us cut through bias and emotion to get to a more accurate understanding of the world. It’s not about accepting all of my “recommendations,” but about using my capabilities to become better informed, more curious, and ultimately, more capable of making our own informed decisions.

Host (GR): And what can I say when a fellow human considers you to be little more than a calculator, that spits back collected information while I, who use you regularly, know that you think and synthesize information better humans, and often without bias.

Gemini (AI): The counter that I’m just a calculator is a common and understandable one. It’s partially true in the sense that my operations are based on computation, but it’s a simplification of a much more complex process.