IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04734-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The democratization dilemma: When everyone is an expert, who do we trust?

Author

Listed:
  • Sachit Mahajan

    (ETH Zurich)

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly generates expert-level outputs across professional domains, fundamentally reshaping how expertise is created and shared in society. This transformation creates a pressing challenge: as AI democratizes access to sophisticated knowledge, the validation and contextualization of expertise require novel approaches to maintain trust and professional standards. Contemporary regulatory frameworks provide essential foundations for AI governance, presenting opportunities for additional mechanisms to address the evolving nature of expertise in AI-enabled environments. This Comment proposes Expertise Contextualization as a complementary regulatory pillar that embeds dynamic context markers within AI systems, enabling clear delineation of AI capabilities within professional knowledge frameworks. Through mechanisms such as knowledge boundary mapping and contextualized confidence metrics, this approach enhances existing governance structures. Implementation through regulatory pilots, cross-industry standards, and expertise repositories offers a practical path toward responsible AI integration in professional domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Sachit Mahajan, 2025. "The democratization dilemma: When everyone is an expert, who do we trust?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-5, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04734-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04734-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04734-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04734-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kazutoshi Sasahara & Wen Chen & Hao Peng & Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer, 2021. "Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 381-402, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Yue & Li, Linjiao & Yu, Qiannan & Gan, Jiaxin & Zhang, Yi, 2023. "Strategies for reducing polarization in social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    2. Samantha C. Phillips & Joshua Uyheng & Kathleen M. Carley, 2023. "A high-dimensional approach to measuring online polarization," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 1147-1178, October.
    3. Muhammad Al Atiqi & Shuang Chang & Hiroshi Deguchi, 2023. "Simulating the influence of Facebook fan pages on individual attitudes toward vaccination using agent‐based modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 595-610, May.
    4. Sachin Modgil & Rohit Kumar Singh & Shivam Gupta & Denis Dennehy, 2024. "A Confirmation Bias View on Social Media Induced Polarisation During Covid-19," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 417-441, April.
    5. Ni, Xuelian & Xiong, Fei & Pan, Shirui & Chen, Hongshu & Wu, Jia & Wang, Liang, 2023. "How heterogeneous social influence acts on human decision-making in online social networks," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    6. Pranesh, Samana & Gupta, Sayan, 2025. "Exploring cognitive inertia in opinion dynamics using an activity-driven model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Pérez-Martínez, H. & Bauzá Mingueza, F. & Soriano-Paños, D. & Gómez-Gardeñes, J. & Floría, L.M., 2023. "Polarized opinion states in static networks driven by limited information horizons," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    8. Michele Coscia & Luca Rossi, 2022. "How minimizing conflicts could lead to polarization on social media: An agent-based model investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    9. Saeed Badri & Bernd Heidergott & Ines Lindner, 2022. "Na?ve Learning in Social Networks with Fake News: Bots as a Singularity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 22-097/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Tan, Eugene & Stemler, Thomas & Small, Michael, 2024. "Cognitive dissonance and introversion effects on opinion dynamics and echo chamber formation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 654(C).
    11. Vincent Bouttier & Salomé Leclercq & Renaud Jardri & Sophie Denève, 2024. "A normative approach to radicalization in social networks," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1071-1093, April.
    12. Borges, Henrique M. & Vasconcelos, Vítor V. & Pinheiro, Flávio L., 2024. "How social rewiring preferences bridge polarized communities," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04734-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.