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.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.