R0043/2026-03-28/Q001/S04
WebSearch — Defense/military and aviation-specific terminology for AI trust and overreliance
Summary
| Field |
Value |
| Source/Database |
WebSearch (two queries combined) |
| Query terms |
(1) AI overreliance automation bias defense military terminology; (2) DOD directive AI autonomous systems "appropriate trust" "calibrated trust" human-machine teaming terminology; (3) AI automation complacency aviation FAA human factors terminology |
| Filters |
None |
| Results returned |
30 |
| Results selected |
4 |
| Results rejected |
26 |
Selected Results
| Result |
Title |
URL |
Rationale |
| S04-R01 |
AI Safety and Automation Bias — CSET Georgetown |
https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ai-safety-and-automation-bias/ |
Cross-domain case studies (Tesla, aviation, military) using automation bias terminology |
| S04-R02 |
AI Trust and Autonomy Labs — SEI/CMU |
https://www.sei.cmu.edu/news/ai-trust-and-autonomy-labs-fill-the-gap-between-ai-breakthroughs-and-dod-deployment/ |
DoD "calibrated trust" framework and CaTE center |
| S04-R03 |
The Dangers of Overreliance on Automation — FAA Safety Briefing |
https://medium.com/faa/the-dangers-of-overreliance-on-automation-5b7afb56ebdc |
FAA's own terminology for automation overreliance and complacency |
| S04-R04 |
Human Factors Requirements for Human-AI Teaming in Aviation — MDPI |
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7590/5/2/42 |
Academic paper noting aviation taxonomies need updating for AI-specific terms |
Rejected Results
| Result |
Title |
URL |
Rationale |
| S04-R05 |
Risks of AI in military targeting — ICRC |
https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/09/04/the-risks-and-inefficacies-of-ai-systems-in-military-targeting-support/ |
Uses generic "automation bias" without domain-specific terms |
| S04-R06 |
Military AI needs regulation — Diplo |
https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/why-military-ai-needs-urgent-regulation/ |
Policy advocacy without terminology focus |
| S04-R07 |
AI for Military Decision-Making — CSET |
https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ai-for-military-decision-making/ |
Focuses on capabilities not terminology |
| S04-R08 |
AI in military decision-making — ICRC |
https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/08/29/artificial-intelligence-in-military-decision-making-supporting-humans-not-replacing-them/ |
Overlapping content with other ICRC source |
| S04-R09 |
Military AI Dialogues 2025 — UNODA |
https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/updates/key-takeaways-military-ai-peace-security-dialogues-2025 |
High-level policy; no terminology detail |
| S04-R10 |
Various other results |
Multiple URLs |
Remaining results were general overviews, duplicates, or tangential |
Notes
Defense and aviation have the most mature terminology for human-side phenomena. Key finding: aviation researchers explicitly note that existing terms like "complacency" and "over-trust" are "probably not nuanced enough to capture the full transactional relationships between human crews and AI support systems" (MDPI), indicating awareness that new terminology is needed for AI-specific interactions.