AI Trust Dispatch
The behavioral science of why people trust, ignore, or work around AI.
-
AI Trust Dispatch covers the behavioral side of AI adoption, trust, and governance: why people trust, ignore, over-rely on, or quietly work around AI tools, and what organizations can do about it. It turns current research and real deployments into practical diagnoses grounded in behavioral science, not vendor claims or generic best practices.
Subscribe if you want to understand why AI rollouts stall even when the technology works, and what evidence of real oversight looks like. It is for leaders deploying or governing AI, especially in regulated settings such as healthcare and financial services, along with risk, compliance, and transformation teams and consultants who need to explain what is happening with AI inside their organizations.
-
Your Orchestration Vendor Sold You a Loop — It Didn’t Sell You What Goes Inside It
Author: Eugene Chan
Published: 29 October 2026The AI orchestration market is on its way to thirty billion dollars.
That number tells you how much enterprises are spending to coordinate, sequence, and govern multi-agent AI systems. It does not tell you whether the human oversight those systems route to is capable of doing the work it is supposed to do. And based on what buyers are reporting, there is a significant gap between what orchestration vendors sold and what organizations actually received.
-
Humanwashing: The AI Governance Problem Nobody Wants to Name
Author: Eugene Chan
Published: 22 October 2026There is a term that appeared in the academic literature this year that deserves to travel much further than conference proceedings.
Humanwashing.
Researchers at Swansea University published a paper at the 2026 Hybrid Human-Artificial Intelligence conference arguing that the phrase “human in the loop” is increasingly used the way “green” was used by corporations in the 1990s — not to describe a substantive practice, but to make a system appear safer than it is. The analogy is precise and the implication is serious: organizations are deploying the language of human oversight as a reputational and regulatory shield, without examining whether the oversight they’re claiming actually functions.