What ChatGPT means for the future of diplomacy
Ilan Manor investigates the growing impact of artificial intelligence on diplomatic communication
The digital revolution of the past two decades threatened to render diplomacy an obsolete institution. Foreign ministries are, after all, historic institutions characterized by rigid working routines, a proclivity for information-keeping and a risk averse communicative culture. Diplomats thus often lack the skills necessary to make the most of websites, blogs and social media, all of which entail the continuous sharing of information and exchange of ideas. Moreover, diplomacy is a profession shrouded by an aura of secrecy and discretion and is thus incompatible with the norm of transparency embedded into digital platforms.
But diplomats have proven to be digital innovators successfully adapting to and embracing new technologies. Foreign ministries have launched embassies in virtual worlds, created social media empires spanning dozens of platforms, utilized websites to communicate with online publics, designed apps, created vibrant blogspheres and mastered the use of big data. Diplomats have also partially lifted the veil of discretion while live-tweeting from diplomatic summits or live-streaming UN deliberations. Presently, however, diplomats across the world are scrambling to contend with a new digital innovation — generative artificial intelligence (AI).
A promising future?
The launch and phenomenal popularity of the generative chatbot ChatGPT has created new challenges and opportunities for diplomats. Generative AI could be used to automate daily diplomatic practices. Press attachés at embassies could employ chatbots to formulate press releases; communications teams could quickly generate tweets or Facebook posts; senior diplomats could produce drafts of speeches while consular departments could automate consular aid provision using chatbots to answer questions posted online by citizens.
Crucially, diplomats could also use generative AI in negotiations. An American diplomat could prepare for trade talks with China by asking ChatGPT to identify recurring criticisms of the US in official Chinese statements. A NATO diplomat could ask ChatGPT to report on inconsistencies in Russian statements on the future of Ukraine that could be used as leverage during security negotiations. Diplomats may even analyse news coverage of negotiations and identify contentious issues which might derail sensitive mediation efforts.
On the other hand, ChatGPT poses a serious threat to diplomacy. This threat is linked to the positive coverage of ChatGPT in mainstream media with journalists applauding the chatbot’s ability to pass exams into law and business schools, formulate legislation, author court documents, and succeed in medical licensing exams. These all lead to generative AI being seen as incredibly sophisticated and reliable, which might turn ChatGPT into a powerful tool for misinformation — especially if users employ the chatbot to learn about world events.
For example, when I asked why Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, ChatGPT offered a brief answer stating that the invasion was prompted by mass protests and the establishment of a pro-western government in Kyiv which threatened Russia’s interests. It did not mention the fact that the mass protests in Kyiv erupted when the pro-Russian President refused to sign a new trade deal with the European Union, and that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets demanding closer ties with the EU and the West. It also failed to mention that violence broke out between protesters and the riot police resulting in the deaths of protesters and an internal political crisis. When confronted with any of these facts, ChatGPT users may discount them as disinformation, lies, fake news and conspiracy theories. For, although ChatGPT suffers from the same ailments of all AI systems, including algorithmic biases and incorrect information, its perceived sophistication and reliability increase its credibility. Incorrect information generated by ChatGPT may shape the opinions, beliefs and actions of its users.
A threat to diplomatic institutions?
In this way, ChatGPT may create myriad alternate realities such as a reality in which Russian propaganda played no part in the Brexit referendum or Donald Trump’s presidential victory. Indeed, when I asked why Britain left the EU, and why Trump got elected, ChatGPT did not mention Russian digital interference. This may lead users to assume that diplomats’ attacks on Russia are lies and a deliberate attempt to harm Russia’s reputation. ChatGPT users may also begin to regard the UN as a biased forum which unjustly penalizes Russia. This, in turn, could decrease public confidence in diplomats and diplomatic institutions.
Lack of confidence in diplomats will further curtail the work of international organizations which have already sustained reputational damage due to populist leaders who brand them as untrustworthy threats to national cultures. Consider Donald Trump’s attacks on the World Health Organization, claiming that it suppressed evidence of the Chinese origin of COVID–19, or Victor Obran’s depictions of EU immigration policies as undermining national and racial cohesion in Europe.
Decreased public confidence would also limit diplomats’ ability to resolve crises and address shared challenges. As the past decade has shown, the twenty-first century is characterized by complex crises which impact the interests of many states. The Syrian civil war, the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, The Russia–Ukraine war, rising tensions between China and the United States and energy rivalries in the Middle East are all examples of this. It is therefore a century in which diplomacy will be indispensable and diplomats’ ability to mediate tensions, foster trust, propose original solutions to shared problems and seek common ground will be in high demand, as long as they enjoy public trust.
Conclusion
Generative AI systems such as ChatGPT have only recently been introduced, and their impact on society remains to be seen. Yet, as diplomats have learned from attempts to regulate cyberspace or combat disinformation on social media, managing digital threats requires swift action. Diplomats must address today the challenges of tomorrow. In the case of generative AI this means fostering ties with AI companies, jointly assessing their potential impact on public opinion, and seeking ways to mitigate negative consequences. This may now be possible thanks to several states’ decisions to open embassies in Silicon Valley, or appoint ambassadors-at-large tasked with managing relations with big tech companies. Such is the case with the Danish foreign ministry, the US State Department and the EU. Conversely, failure to work with tech and AI companies risks undermining the public trust on which both diplomats and international organizations depend.
Ilan Manor is a Digital Diplomacy scholar at Ben Gurion University of the Negev and a member of Oxford University’s Digital Diplomacy Research Group. He blogs on digital diplomacy at www.digdipblog.com.
His article, co-authored with Corneliu Bjola titled ‘The rise of hybrid diplomacy: from digital adaptation to digital adoption’, was published in the March 2022 issue of International Affairs.
All views expressed are individual not institutional.
