In the present era, the emergence of generative artificial intelligence and artificial media has changed the paradigm of politics from a concern for “access to information” to a crisis of “truth validation.” The democratic biosphere, which is based on intersubjective understanding and communicative action, is now facing ontological threats. Artificial media or deepfakes have blurred the boundary between reality and fiction by producing realistic content. The main issue is that in the post-truth space, not only does falsehood replace truth, but the “possibility of discerning truth” is also lost. This research seeks to critically examine this fundamental transformation in the public sphere.

Research Questions

How does the spread of artificial media and intelligent algorithms challenge the effectiveness and legitimacy of democratic systems by changing the nature of truth and polarizing public opinion?

2. Background

A review of the research literature indicates an increasing focus on the destructive consequences of AI. Olanipkon (2024) believes that deepfake has eroded journalistic integrity and made it difficult to verify the truth. Mahoney and Chen (2024) have pointed out the role of media manipulation by AI in distorting public opinion. Domestically, Tazari (1403) has focused on security aspects and threat prediction, and Karami and Mottaqi (1403) have assessed the diplomatic potential of this technology. However, the gap in the literature is the lack of philosophical-political analyses based on Habermas's theory of communicative action in the face of generative AI, which this study addresses.

3. Methodology

This study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. Data collection was carried out using a library method and primary and secondary sources were used.

4. Findings

The research findings are grouped into three main areas:

Epistemological crisis and liar’s dividend: By distorting “truth claims,” artificial media have made citizens skeptical when faced with any reality. This situation allows politicians to deny even documented facts with the label “made by AI.”

Algorithmic management and echo chambers: By excessively personalizing information, recommendation algorithms have enclosed users in information bubbles and eliminated the possibility of rational dialogue between different social groups, leading to severe political polarization.

Decline of the public sphere: The public sphere, which should be a place where opinions converge to achieve the common good, has been transformed by artificial media into an arena for the mass production of disinformation, the outcome of which is public confusion rather than legitimacy.

5. Discussion

As a discussion, it can be said that artificial intelligence has caused a kind of “digital refeudalization” in the public sphere. If in the past economic and political powers threatened the public sphere, today technological powers have targeted the free will of citizens through cognitive manipulation. From Habermas’ perspective, communicative action based on honesty and integrity has given way to strategic and deceptive actions in cyberspace. By simulating human identities (bots and avatars), artificial intelligence has denied the possibility of recognizing the “real other” and, as a result, the democratic process, which requires mutual recognition, has reached a dead end.

6. Conclusion

The final result of the research indicates that generative artificial intelligence, as a “destructive technology,” has targeted the epistemic foundations of democracy. To counter this trend, technical solutions alone (such as watermarking content) are not enough, but rather we should seek to strengthen “critical media literacy” and rebuild intermediary institutions in the public sphere. Democracy in the age of artificial intelligence requires a return to communicative ethics and the creation of bulwarks against the digital colonization of the biosphere to prevent citizens from becoming passive, manipulated subjects.