Quantum Mechanics, AI and the Future of Diplomacy
Ilan Manor and Giles Strachan explore what happens when diplomacy is reduced to lines of code.
One of the defining characteristics of Quantum Mechanics is its assertion that several realities can co-exist at any given moment. The advent of Generative AIs may usher in a world in which there is no longer a single definition of reality. Indeed, Generative AIs may be used to create and disseminate false, yet highly believable realities which are grounded in fake visuals and fake documents. The emergence of a world in which people subscribe to different realities may be especially challenging for diplomacy. As we argue in this article, diplomacy necessitates that diplomats reach a shared definition of reality. Without such a definition, diplomats cannot act, and diplomacy cannot function.
Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is considered the cornerstone of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg famously argued that quantum particles are subject to unpredictable fluctuations, making them impossible to track precisely. The position and momentum of an electron, for example, are subject to unpredictable fluctuations and as such cannot be measured exactly. Even more complex is the understanding that electrons do not possess precise values simultaneously. One can measure the position of an electron, or its momentum but never both simultaneously. Put differently, quantum particles simply do not simultaneously possess precise values of these two attributes- position and momentum. As such, quantum mechanics is a statistical theory. One can measure an electron’s position and estimate its possible momentum thereby generating a set of predictions as to where the electron will move next. These predictions can be regarded as a set of plausible realities. It is plausible that an electron may find its way across the room or that it may remain in its place or that it will move ever so slightly. Different momentums generate different statistical predictions or different plausible realities. In other words, quantum mechanics allows for the existence of several plausible realities at any given moment.
Unlike the quantum realm, ‘the real world’ is supposedly marked by a single shared definition of reality. Donald Trump is President. Russia and Ukraine are at War. India and Pakistan are clashing over Kashmir. Nvidia’s stock price is 135$. That is the reality of the world. And yet people around the world often subscribe to different realities and numerous definitions of reality have always co-existed. These are known as “history”.
According to Russian history, the Great Patriotic War of 1939-1945 ended on May 8th as a soldier hoisted the Soviet flag over the German Reichstag. According to British history, World War 2 ended on May 8th, 1945, when the German high command offered Germany’s unconditional surrender. According to US history, the Vietnam War was meant to prevent a domino effect in which Southeast Asia would fall into Communist hands. According to Vietnamese history, the Vietnam War was a brutal, imperialist war waged to prevent the unification of Vietnam.
Most societies and nations are able to exist in a world without a single, shared definition of reality. The same cannot be said of diplomacy. In fact, diplomatic activities necessitate a shared definition of reality. Diplomats cannot, for instance, resolve the Russia-Ukraine War if according to some diplomats there are thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine and if according to other diplomats there are no Russia troops in Ukraine. To resolve this crisis, diplomats must reach some consensus such as: “there are Russian troops in Ukraine”. Once diplomats agree that there are Russian troops in Ukraine, they may search for ways to remove these troops.
Reaching a shared definition of reality is the very goal of diplomatic negotiations. The art of negotiation is really the art of reaching a consensus about reality. Negotiators are skilled at narrowing differences between different parties’ definitions of reality. When two countries subscribe to entirely different definitions of reality, negotiations grow complex and at times become impossible. Such was the case during the 1991 Madrid Conference in which Israeli and Arab delegations could not even agree that there was a political entity known as “Palestine”. The smaller the differences between parties’ definition of reality, the smoother negotiations are likely to be.
The quest for a shared definition of reality dictates how negotiations are conducted. Diplomats are unlikely to change their definition of reality in front of news cameras as this would mean negating state messages. But cloistered in a negotiation room, and surrounded by trusted colleagues, diplomats may be able to alter their definition of reality. In 2014, far from prying eyes, a Russian diplomat could have conceded that “some” Russian troops had crossed into Crimea.
The endeavor to reach a shared definition of reality is also the goal of public diplomacy in which one nation shares its definition of reality with another. Under the Obama administration, US public diplomacy disseminated a definition of reality according to which an “Iran Deal” would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while revitalizing the Iranian economy and increasing stability across the region. Once other nations embraced these definitions of reality, their diplomats joined American ones in trying to broker an Iran Deal.
That diplomacy requires a shared definition of reality explains the destructive potential of Generative AI as these tools can be utilized to create false yet highly believable realities. For example, false AI-generated images, videos, documents, and military plans can be created within seconds and shared digitally creating a dizzying array of plausible realities. It is the level of sophistication of AI-generated content that increases the potency of these false realities as AI-generated content can no longer be distinguished from genuine articles. ChatGPT users could thus disseminate a false yet believable reality according to which there are Chinese or even American troops in Ukraine, realities supported by visuals and memos.
In recent days, the use of AI to generate plausible realities that may complicate crises and the work of diplomats became evident. In the aftermath of the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, MFAs scrambled to gather information. Clearly some form of military exchange had taken place, but the precise details were unclear. Along with the usual tools for misinformation – photos from other conflicts, shoddy photoshop jobs – a new form of misinformation emerged. On May 8th, only one day after the exchange, a sophisticated deepfake purported to show Pakistani General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry reporting the loss of two Pakistani jets. The report was quickly picked up on Indian media channels and was viewing nearly one million times before being debunked. The speed with which false AI-generated images can be produced and disseminated demonstrates that, thanks to AI, diplomacy is facing greater challenges than ever in maintaining a single definition of reality.
Notably, AI-generated realities could be delivered via social media algorithms directly to people willing to believe them. The real world would thus suddenly mirror the atom world as several realities would co-exist simultaneously. However, statistical probabilities would not apply to the real world as there would be an infinite number of plausible realities to which people subscribe, each created by different AI users and funneled through different algorithms. This endless number of plausible realities would fracture societies into atoms that do not join to create a coherent whole.
The real world would thus be even more difficult to comprehend than the quantum one, and almost impossible to manage by diplomats.
For how can diplomats reach a shared definition of reality when there is no single reality? Diplomats may soon enter the negotiating room believing in opposite realities, making negotiations all but impossible. Similarly, public diplomacy activities would grow ineffective for how could two nations reach a shared definition of reality when national publics have been splintered into endless numbers of plausible realities? Any diplomatic message would have to account for all possible realities. Yet, like electrons, each reality would be composed of different variables too numerous to calculate. Ultimately, in their quest to reach some concerns diplomats may automate their messaging, using bots to create endless variations of messages that account for endless variations of reality. This bott-ification of diplomacy would hasten the demise of diplomacy as an instrument for managing world affairs. Diplomacy would be reduced to lines of code as diplomats long for the solace of the negotiating room of old.
Ilan Manor is a digital diplomacy scholar at Ben Gurion University of the Negev. His 2024 co-edited book, The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy, was published by Oxford University Press. His 2019 book, The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy¸ was published Palgrave Macmillan. Manor has authored more than 30 peer reviewed articles on the topic of digital diplomacy.
Giles Strachan is a former international trade official with a strong interest in digital technologies and industrial policy. A graduate of Cambridge and King’s College London, his writings on foreign policy have been published in Foreign Policy and The Jerusalem Post. His forthcoming book on the history of digital diplomacy, co-authored with Ilan Manor, will be published later this year.
Photo by ThisIsEngineering
