{"title":"Yet another turn? priotising the needs of diplomacy over the capabilities of generative AI","authors":"Efe Sevin, M. Evren Eken","doi":"10.1057/s41254-024-00325-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this forum piece, we argue that the widespread heraldry regarding artificial intelligence (AI) as a panacea in diplomacy and articulating research agendas on the changes it might bring are potentially clouding the future hardships of diplomacy. With all its subfields, International Relations (IR) has gone through numerous “turns”, especially during the last two decades which made encounters poised to change the nature of foreign policy—such as new actors, ideas, or technologies—a familiar experience. While these discussions enriched the discipline of IR, hardly any of these turns lived up to their promises. Certainly, we have an increasingly challenging and complex multipolar world ahead of us. This manifests that a broader network of actors, interests, and technologies needs to be considered. AI, indeed, has the potential capacity to assist and disrupt the ways diplomacy works. Yet heralding an anticipatory practice and study of diplomacy based on AI’s socio-technical imaginaries and calculations rather than as a participatory process centered on immediate human interaction, resources, intelligence, and rapport bears the potential of obscuring the analytical clarity needed. In short, we argue that the rise of AI should not be discussed as yet another new turn poised to cure diplomacy and international relations. We conclude our piece by reminding scholars to bring analytical focus on what lies at the heart of diplomacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47147,"journal":{"name":"Place Branding and Public Diplomacy","volume":"144 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Place Branding and Public Diplomacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-024-00325-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this forum piece, we argue that the widespread heraldry regarding artificial intelligence (AI) as a panacea in diplomacy and articulating research agendas on the changes it might bring are potentially clouding the future hardships of diplomacy. With all its subfields, International Relations (IR) has gone through numerous “turns”, especially during the last two decades which made encounters poised to change the nature of foreign policy—such as new actors, ideas, or technologies—a familiar experience. While these discussions enriched the discipline of IR, hardly any of these turns lived up to their promises. Certainly, we have an increasingly challenging and complex multipolar world ahead of us. This manifests that a broader network of actors, interests, and technologies needs to be considered. AI, indeed, has the potential capacity to assist and disrupt the ways diplomacy works. Yet heralding an anticipatory practice and study of diplomacy based on AI’s socio-technical imaginaries and calculations rather than as a participatory process centered on immediate human interaction, resources, intelligence, and rapport bears the potential of obscuring the analytical clarity needed. In short, we argue that the rise of AI should not be discussed as yet another new turn poised to cure diplomacy and international relations. We conclude our piece by reminding scholars to bring analytical focus on what lies at the heart of diplomacy.
期刊介绍:
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy?is a pioneering journal and the first to concentrate on this fast-growing field. Its scope and reach is global and culturally unbiased. Its primary objective is to broaden the understanding of the nature purposes and benefits of both place branding and public diplomacy and to demonstrate how place branding and public diplomacy strategies are implemented in practice.Place branding is the practice of applying brand strategy and other techniques and disciplines - some deriving from commercial practice others newly developed - to the economic social political and cultural development of cities regions and countries. Public diplomacy is the process by which an international actor – often but not exclusively a country – conducts foreign policy by engaging a foreign public. Public Diplomacy and Place Branding are not synonyms but their overlaps are sufficient to justify a journal which considers both activities in their own right and at their point of convergence.Both Place Branding and Public Diplomacy are significantly but not exclusively concerned with reputation management.