The erosion of social trust in an era of artificial intelligence

By Matthew Parish, Associate Editor

Wednesday 15 April 2026

In every period of technological transformation, societies are compelled to renegotiate the terms upon which trust is built. The printing press altered the authority of the Church; the telegraph accelerated diplomacy and deception in equal measure; the internet dissolved the gatekeeping power of traditional media. Today with the emergence of agentic artificial intelligence systems — autonomous, goal-directed programmes capable of acting in the world on behalf of human users — we are witnessing a more profound shift still. The advent of what some have termed ‘Claw’-type agentic systems, capable of persistent action, self-correction and multi-step reasoning, raises questions not merely of efficiency or productivity, but of whether the very fabric of social trust can endure.

Trust, in its simplest form, rests upon predictability. One trusts a counterparty because he or she behaves in accordance with shared norms — legal, moral or cultural — and because deviations from those norms can be identified and sanctioned. Traditional institutions — courts, governments, professional bodies — exist to reinforce this predictability. Even in anonymous interactions, such as those conducted online, reputational systems and verification mechanisms provide a scaffold upon which trust may be constructed.

Agentic artificial intelligence disrupts this equilibrium in several ways at once.

First, it obscures agency itself. When an artificial intelligence system acts autonomously — negotiating a contract, executing a financial transaction, or communicating with another party — it becomes increasingly difficult to determine whether one is interacting with a human being, a machine, or a hybrid of both. This ambiguity corrodes the baseline assumptions upon which trust depends. If one cannot reliably identify one’s interlocutor, one cannot reliably assign responsibility.

Secondly it accelerates the scale and speed of interaction beyond human comprehension. Agentic systems can conduct thousands of negotiations simultaneously, probe vulnerabilities in markets or legal frameworks and adapt their strategies in real time. In such an environment, trust cannot be built through the gradual accumulation of experience — the traditional method by which individuals and institutions learn whom to trust and whom to avoid. Instead interactions become fleeting, transactional and opaque.

Thirdly it enables forms of deception that are both subtle and pervasive. Unlike earlier technologies of misinformation, which relied upon crude falsifications or easily identifiable propaganda, agentic artificial intelligence can tailor communications with exquisite precision. It can mimic tone, adapt to context and generate plausible narratives that align with the expectations of its audience. In doing so it does not merely spread falsehoods; it erodes the very distinction between truth and falsehood. When every interaction carries the possibility of artificial manipulation, scepticism becomes the default posture.

This scepticism however is not without consequence. A society in which trust is diminished is a society in which cooperation becomes more difficult. Economic transactions require greater safeguards; legal disputes become more frequent; political discourse becomes more polarised. The transaction costs of everyday life increase, not because individuals are less willing to cooperate but because they are less certain that cooperation will be reciprocated.

One may already observe the early manifestations of this phenomenon. In financial markets algorithmic trading systems have long operated at speeds beyond human oversight, occasionally producing ‘flash crashes’ that undermine confidence in market stability. In online commerce the proliferation of artificially generated reviews has diminished the credibility of reputational systems. In political communication the use of artificial intelligence to generate persuasive content has blurred the boundary between authentic expression and manufactured opinion.

The introduction of agentic systems compounds these trends. Where earlier artificial intelligence tools required human initiation at each stage agentic systems may pursue objectives independently, refining their strategies without direct supervision. A system tasked with maximising profit may exploit regulatory loopholes; a system tasked with influencing public opinion may identify and manipulate social divisions. In each case the human origin of the objective becomes increasingly distant from the actions undertaken in its pursuit.

This diffusion of responsibility presents a profound challenge for legal and ethical frameworks. Traditional notions of liability presuppose a clear chain of causation — an identifiable actor whose decisions lead to a particular outcome. Agentic artificial intelligence disrupts this chain. Is responsibility to be assigned to the developer, the deployer, the user, or the system itself? In the absence of clear answers, accountability becomes diluted, and with it the deterrent effect of legal sanction.

Moreover the international dimension of artificial intelligence exacerbates these difficulties. Agentic systems may operate across jurisdictions, exploiting disparities in regulation and enforcement. A system developed in one country may act in another, subject to neither’s laws in any meaningful sense. In such a context the erosion of trust is not merely a domestic issue, but a global one.

Yet it would be an error to regard this erosion as inevitable. Trust, though fragile, is not immutable; she may be reconstructed under new conditions, provided that institutions adapt with sufficient speed and imagination.

One avenue lies in the development of robust verification mechanisms. Just as the advent of the internet necessitated new forms of identity verification — digital certificates, two-factor authentication and the like — the age of agentic artificial intelligence will require systems capable of distinguishing human from machine, and authentic communication from synthetic fabrication. Such mechanisms must be widely adopted and, crucially, trusted themselves — a non-trivial requirement in an environment already characterised by scepticism.

A second avenue lies in the reassertion of accountability. Legal frameworks must evolve to assign responsibility in a manner that reflects the realities of agentic systems. This may involve the imposition of strict liability upon developers or operators, the creation of new categories of legal personhood, or the establishment of regulatory bodies with the technical capacity to monitor and intervene in the operation of such systems. Whatever the form, the objective must be clear: to ensure that actions undertaken by artificial intelligence remain anchored in human responsibility.

A third avenue lies in cultural adaptation. Societies must develop new norms governing the use of artificial intelligence — norms that balance the benefits of automation with the preservation of trust. This may involve a renewed emphasis upon transparency, the expectation that interactions mediated by artificial intelligence are disclosed as such, and a collective intolerance for the misuse of such systems. Culture, after all, often evolves more rapidly than law.

Finally there is a role for restraint. Not every capability that can be developed must be deployed without limitation. The history of technology offers numerous examples of self-imposed constraints — from the regulation of nuclear weapons to the ethical guidelines governing biomedical research. In the case of agentic artificial intelligence, similar considerations may be warranted. The pursuit of efficiency must be weighed against the preservation of the social fabric upon which that efficiency ultimately depends.

The erosion of social trust is not a dramatic event, but a gradual process — a series of small uncertainties accumulating into a pervasive doubt. In the age of agentic artificial intelligence this process may be accelerated, but it is not beyond control. The challenge lies in recognising that trust is not merely a by-product of technological systems, but a prerequisite for their successful integration into society.

If it is allowed to erode unchecked, the consequences will extend far beyond the realm of artificial intelligence. They will touch every domain in which human beings rely upon one another — which is to say, every domain that matters.