When the first opinion comes from a machine

This article is authored by Aparajitha Nair, research scholar, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi.

Not long ago, answering a question meant turning to a book, a newspaper, a trusted expert or, at the very least, a search engine that offered a list of competing sources. Today, an increasing number of people simply ask an Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot. Whether it is explaining a complex medical condition, summarising a political event, recommending an investment strategy or interpreting a legal provision, AI is rapidly becoming the first stop for information. The convenience is undeniable. So is the speed. But beneath this technological leap lies a silent transformation that deserves far greater attention: we are not merely changing how we access information; we are changing who we trust to tell us what is true.

AI in journalism (MidJourney)

For centuries, societies have built systems of knowledge around identifiable authorities. Journalists verified facts before publishing them, academics subjected research to peer review, doctors relied on years of training before making diagnoses and courts weighed evidence before arriving at conclusions. These institutions were far from perfect, but they shared one defining feature: Accountability. Their credibility rested not only on the information they produced but also on the processes through which that information was created, questioned and corrected.

AI is reshaping this relationship. Unlike a newspaper article, an AI-generated response rarely reveals how it reached its conclusion. It presents information in a polished, conversational tone that appears confident regardless of whether the underlying answer is accurate, incomplete or entirely fabricated. The authority of the response no longer comes from a named expert or a recognised institution but from the machine's ability to sound convincing.

The implications extend far beyond technology. Consider journalism, an institution whose primary purpose is not simply to report events but to verify them. A news report is the product of editorial decisions, multiple sources, ethical guidelines and legal accountability. Yet an AI system can summarise the same event in seconds, stripping away much of the context that explains why the story matters. To the average reader, the difference may seem inconsequential. After all, both provide information. But information and journalism are not the same thing. Journalism is built on judgement. Editors decide what deserves public attention. Reporters verify competing claims, distinguish facts from rumours and provide context that raw data alone cannot capture. AI, by contrast, predicts the most probable sequence of words based on patterns in existing information. It does not investigate corruption, attend court hearings, question public officials or hold institutions to account. It can organise knowledge, but it cannot replace the civic function of producing it.

This distinction becomes especially important during moments of crisis. Elections, armed conflicts, natural disasters and public health emergencies demand information that is timely, accurate and responsibly sourced. In such situations, confidence without accountability can be dangerous. An AI system may generate a plausible explanation within seconds, but if that explanation is incorrect, who bears responsibility? Unlike journalists, editors or public institutions, algorithms cannot be questioned, cross-examined or held ethically accountable for the consequences of misinformation.

The growing reliance on AI also changes the way knowledge itself is understood. Search engines encouraged users to compare multiple sources before reaching a conclusion. AI interfaces encourage something different: a single, coherent answer that appears complete. The messy process of evaluating competing perspectives is replaced by the convenience of a neatly packaged response. While this undoubtedly improves accessibility, it also risks reducing critical engagement with information.

The danger is not that AI will always provide false answers. In many cases, it performs remarkably well. The greater risk is that users may gradually lose the habit of questioning the information they receive. When answers arrive instantly and confidently, there is less incentive to ask where they came from, what evidence supports them or whose perspectives may have been excluded. Trust shifts from evidence to experience; if the interaction feels seamless, the answer is often accepted without further scrutiny.

This is not an argument against AI. It has already demonstrated immense value in research, education, health care and countless other fields. It can help journalists analyse large datasets, assist doctors in identifying patterns within medical images and enable students to explore complex ideas more effectively. Used responsibly, it has the potential to democratise access to knowledge on an unprecedented scale.

The challenge is ensuring that convenience does not become a substitute for credibility. Rather than treating AI as an independent authority, societies must continue to value the institutions that produce reliable knowledge in the first place. Journalists, researchers, educators and public experts remain essential because they do more than provide answers. They explain uncertainty, justify conclusions and accept responsibility when they are wrong. These qualities cannot be replicated simply by generating coherent text.

As governments develop AI policies and technology companies compete to build increasingly sophisticated models, discussions often revolve around computing power, regulation and commercial innovation. Equally important, however, is a broader question about the future of public trust. If algorithms become the primary intermediaries between citizens and information, what happens to the institutions that have traditionally shaped informed public discourse? More importantly, how do we ensure that trust continues to be earned rather than merely engineered?

AI is undoubtedly changing how knowledge is delivered. Whether it should also redefine who we trust to create that knowledge is a question that cannot be answered by technology alone. It is ultimately a question about society, democracy and the values we wish to preserve in an age where the most persuasive voice may no longer belong to a person, but to a machine.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Aparajitha Nair, research scholar, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi.