The Discursive Construction of Expertise, Trust, and Communicative Legitimacy in AI-Generated Health Content: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude

Öz

The growing prevalence of AI-generated content in digital health communication has made users’ perceptions of such content a critical communicative issue. Health texts produced by artificial intelligence can generate high levels of trust and authority despite lacking medical expertise, indicating an influence that operates independently of informational accuracy. This situation calls for a re-examination of expertise, trust, and legitimacy in the circulation of health information in digital environments. This study is an empirical qualitative investigation based on the analysis of 90 textual responses generated by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude to 30 health-related questions using Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis framework. The study examines how trust is constructed in AI-generated health content and through which communicative mechanisms expertise is legitimized. It proposes a comprehensive conceptual framework grounded in key theories from communication and social theory, including Weber’s authority typology, Foucault’s knowledge–power relations, Bourdieu’s symbolic capital, Luhmann’s and Giddens’s approaches to trust, and Habermas’s notion of communicative legitimacy. The article argues that AI-generated health content does not represent expertise directly but rather simulates its linguistic and discursive markers. This simulation may weaken users’ critical evaluation processes and foster a new form of communicative legitimacy in the public circulation of health information. The study offers a theoretical contribution to the health communication literature by rethinking trust, perceived expertise, and the communicative role of artificial intelligence in digital contexts. The article proposes a conceptual framework grounded in foundational theories of communication. Weber’s theory of authority, Foucault’s approach to power–knowledge relations, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital, Luhmann’s and Giddens’ theoretical accounts of trust and Habermas’ discussions of communicative legitimacy are brought together within an integrated analytical perspective to examine AI-mediated health communication. This theoretical framework positions artificial intelligence not merely as a technical instrument, but as a communicative actor capable of producing trust, authority and legitimacy through discursive strategies. The article argues that AI-generated health content does not directly represent expertise, but rather simulates the linguistic, formal, and discursive markers of expert knowledge. Such simulation may reduce critical evaluation in users’ health information processing and contribute to the emergence of a new form of communicative legitimacy in the public circulation of health knowledge. By foregrounding the communicative production of trust and the perceptual construction of expertise, this study seeks to offer a theoretical contribution to the health communication literature, particularly in understanding the evolving role of artificial intelligence in digitally mediated communication contexts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Sağlık İletişimi
• Güven
• Otorite
• İletişimsel Meşruiyet.

Etik Beyan

This study is a qualitative discourse analysis based on publicly accessible texts generated by generative artificial intelligence systems. No human participants were involved, and no personal data, sensitive health information, or individual experiences were collected or analyzed. Therefore, ethical committee approval was not required. The study was conducted in accordance with established principles of research and publication ethics.

Yapay Zekâ Üretimli Sağlık İçeriklerinde Uzmanlık, Güven ve Meşruiyetin Söylemsel İnşası: ChatGPT, Gemini ve Claude Üzerine Bir Analiz

Öz

Dijital sağlık iletişiminde yapay zekâ destekli içerik üretiminin yaygınlaşması, bu içeriklerin kullanıcılar tarafından nasıl algılandığını önemli bir iletişimsel sorun hâline getirmektedir. Yapay zekâ tarafından üretilen sağlık metinlerinin, tıbbi uzmanlık yetkisine sahip olmaksızın yüksek düzeyde güven ve otorite algısı yaratabilmesi, bilginin doğruluğundan bağımsız bir etki alanına işaret etmektedir. Bu durum, dijital ortamlarda sağlık bilgisinin dolaşımında uzmanlık, güven ve meşruiyet kavramlarının yeniden tartışılmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu araştırma, ChatGPT, Gemini ve Claude sistemlerine yöneltilen 30 sağlık sorusuna verilen toplam 90 metinsel yanıtın Norman Fairclough’un Eleştirel Söylem Analizi yaklaşımıyla incelendiği ampirik nitel bir çalışmadır. Çalışmada, yapay zekâ üretimli sağlık içeriklerinde güvenin nasıl kurulduğu ve uzmanlığın hangi iletişimsel mekanizmalar üzerinden meşrulaştırıldığı incelenmektedir. Weber’in otorite kuramı, Foucault’nun bilgi-iktidar ilişkisi, Bourdieu’nun sembolik sermaye yaklaşımı, Luhmann ve Giddens’ın güven kavramları ile Habermas’ın iletişimsel meşruiyet tartışmaları bütüncül bir kavramsal çerçevede ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, yapay zekânın uzmanlığı doğrudan temsil etmekten ziyade, uzmanlığın dilsel ve söylemsel göstergelerini simüle ettiğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu simülasyonun, kullanıcıların eleştirel değerlendirme süreçlerini zayıflatabileceği ve dijital sağlık iletişiminde yeni bir meşruiyet biçimi üretebileceği tartışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Sağlık İletişimi
• Güven
• Otorite
• İletişimsel Meşruiyet.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, kamusal olarak erişilebilir üretken yapay zekâ sistemleri tarafından üretilen metinlere dayalı nitel bir söylem analizi çalışmasıdır. Araştırma sürecinde herhangi bir insan katılımcıdan veri toplanmamış, kişisel veri, hassas sağlık bilgisi veya bireysel deneyimlere yer verilmemiştir. Bu nedenle çalışma, etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir. Çalışma, bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Kaynakça

1. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981)
2. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Basil B lackwell Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF. UK
3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
4. Briggs, C. L., & Hallin, D. C. (2016). Making health public: How news coverage is remaking media, medicine, and contemporary life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658049
5. Bucchi, M. (2008). Science and society: An introduction to social studies of science. Routledge.
6. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2016). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.
7. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.
8. Floridi, L. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001

9. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People-An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
10. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books. New York.
11. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
12. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press.
13. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86.
14. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.
15. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.
16. Luhmann, N. (2017). Trust and power (H. Davis, J. Raffan, & K. Rooney, Trans.). Wiley. (Original work published 1973)
17. Lupton, D. (2015). The quantified self. Polity Press.
18. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
19. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage.
20. Rudd, Rima & Anderson, Jennie. (2006). The Health Literacy Environment of Hospitals and Health Centers. Partners for Action: Making Your Healthcare Facility Literacy-Friendly. National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (NCSALL).
21. Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Polity Press.
22. Thompson, J. B. (2005). The New Visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276405059413
23. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
24. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage Publications.