AI Eroding Trust in Doctors as 53% Turn to Chatbots for Second Opinion

AI Undermining Trust in Professionals Across Multiple Fields

Generative AI is fundamentally reshaping how people interact with professional expertise, according to new research by Use.AI1

1

2

2

. A survey of 15,428 adults reveals that 53% now use AI to verify professional advice before deciding whether to accept it1

1

. This shift marks a departure from traditional societal trust, where people once accepted guidance from doctors, teachers, managers, journalists, and economists without question2

2

.

The research identifies what Use.AI terms an "expertise recession"—a decline in automatic deference to professionals with years of training and experience1

1

. Nearly half of respondents, 46%, stated that professional credentials now carry less weight than before because AI users can independently investigate claims that would previously have been difficult to assess1

1

. This represents a fundamental shift in how expertise is valued in society.

Questioning Professional Advice Becomes the New Normal

The data shows that 64% of people now feel more confident challenging professional advice after checking it with AI2

2

. Many individuals are using AI for a second opinion and preparing questions ahead of appointments with doctors or other professionals, allowing them to inquire about subjects they might not otherwise have considered1

1

. This behavior suggests AI is being used as a fact-checking tool to verify professional advice before accepting it as valid.

However, this trend toward questioning professional advice raises concerns about the accuracy of AI-generated information. Chatbots lack access to complete patient medical histories, test results, or other critical details that doctors would have1

1

. The gap between confidence and competence continues to widen as more people rely on AI for information searches and verification2

2

.

Harmful Medical Advice and the Risks of AI Democratizes Confidence

The consequences of AI eroding trust in doctors have already manifested in dangerous ways. Last year, a man developed the rare psychiatric disorder bromism after following ChatGPT's suggestion to replace dietary salt with sodium bromide1

1

. A lawsuit alleges the chatbot recommended a dangerous drug combination that resulted in a teenager's fatal overdose1

1

. Research has also shown that Google's AI health summaries cited YouTube more often than authoritative medical sources, and even a tiny amount of false medical information in training data could significantly increase incorrect answers1

1

.

Ihor Herasymov, Co-Founder and CEO of Use.AI, captured the core issue: "AI has democratized confidence faster than it has democratized knowledge. Someone can use AI to arrive at better questions without becoming qualified to judge the answers"1

1

2

2

. This observation highlights the fundamental problem—people gain confidence in challenging expertise without necessarily gaining the knowledge required to evaluate responses accurately.

Generational Divide in Trust and Professional Credentials

The survey reveals a clear age-based split in willingness to challenge professional expertise. Among adults aged 18 to 34, 70% said AI has made them more comfortable questioning professional advice, compared with just 49% of those aged 45 and over1

1

2

2

. This generational divide suggests younger adults are more willing to treat AI as an equal or superior source of information compared to trained professionals.

This shift has implications for how professional credentials are perceived across generations. Younger users appear less impressed by years of education and experience, instead prioritizing information they can independently verify through AI. Watch for this trend to intensify as AI tools become more sophisticated and accessible, potentially creating friction between professionals and patients who arrive armed with AI-generated questions and counter-arguments. The challenge ahead lies in finding balance—leveraging AI to ask better questions while recognizing the limitations of democratized knowledge versus genuine expertise.