Artificial intelligence, explained.
AI-generated portrait grid (Canva), based on a public domain Clausewitz portrait via Wikimedia Commons
Foreign policy analysts don’t need a chatbot to write – but opportunities lie with stress-testing their arguments.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Claude for Clausewitz?Claude for Clausewitz?
Earlier this month, OpenAI caused an intellectual earthquake by posting a solution (Opens in new window) to one of the hardest open problems in mathematics, using an internal generative AI model. Stunning as it is controversial (Opens in new window), the announcement was not entirely surprising (Opens in new window) for those watching how newer AI models have been shaping the mathematical scene for the past six months. In the run-up to the latest announcement, several other long-standing (Opens in new window) mathematical (Opens in new window) questions (Opens in new window) had been answered by AI. For some, it was only a matter of time before one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems (Opens in new window) – long considered the lodestar of mathematical research – fell to the machines.
Once derided as “stochastic parrots (Opens in new window)”, generative AI is transforming scientific research. Scholars now ponder whether science will meaningfully remain (Opens in new window) a human endeavour for long. Along with how GenAI is transforming the wider world of knowledge work – including in the business of war and peace, for better or worse (Opens in new window) – analysts have their work cut out as they explore political and policy implications.
At the same time, political and security affairs thinkers can improve their own craft by careful integration of reasoning models (Opens in new window). Conversations (Opens in new window) so far have largely focused on one aspect of this proposition: the use of AI in preparing text, and the concomitant and unfortunately commonplace practice of passing off AI-generated ideas and words as one’s own. But other possibilities deserve a fair hearing, too.
Tools of the trade (Sou Jest/Unsplash)
Since the arrival of ChatGPT in late 2022, policy wonks, in and out of government, have explored how best to rope the bots in as support (Opens in new window). A few examples:
The CIA apparently has chatbots (Opens in new window) who play the role of various (real) world leaders, presumably to understand their intentions better.
Researchers have looked at promises and pitfalls (Opens in new window) of fusing AI with wargaming (Opens in new window). Large-scale social simulations with AI agents (Opens in new window) is a promising frontier of computational social science, along with AI for strategic assessment and early warning (Opens in new window).
Political risk outfits integrate (Opens in new window) AI-generated assessments with human judgement. Hobbyists routinely vibe-code (Opens in new window) dashboards that track specific conflicts, often to rather murky effects (Opens in new window).
But you don’t have to be a spook or a nerd to put the machines to work. Depending on your interest, several possibilities present themselves.
Capable GenAI models allow easy data analysis (Opens in new window), even for those who are not so disposed temperamentally. The more technically capable can also use AI agents (Opens in new window) – models given a task to accomplish specific goals near-autonomously – to simplify routine work such as preparation of bibliographies by extracting relevant information from files. Newer models are also quite capable of fact-checking, and synthesising a large volume of supplied information (Opens in new window) coherently.
There are deeper options for the adventurous.
GenAI can be used for scenario creation and analysis. Language models are capable of generating coherent stories given broad guidance. Many private firms already use (Opens in new window) this feature to identify plausible futures (Opens in new window). In fact, AI-based scenario generation is an active area of research (Opens in new window). And if fictional scenarios are what you are after, factual hallucinations – a known AI affliction – is hardly a deal breaker.
But the key to DIY lies in very careful and continuous prompting. I recently conducted an experiment to see whether a frontier model could write a very concrete quasi-fictional scenario and then perform an alternative futures analysis in a prescribed format. While the results are encouraging – details here (Opens in new window) – a point of caution. Chatbots can sometimes be fluent and inconsistent at once. Scenarios and futures analysis reward creativity but not logical and causal indiscipline. As AI-generated scenarios become involved, builders have to be on guard.
Paradoxically, GenAI models are also extremely good at close reading. Given well-defined instructions, they can flag possible contradictions and jumps in argument. These are useful abilities in stress-testing drafts as well as archival records. In another recent experiment (Opens in new window) I had a model assess a declassified memorandum against a fixed set of analytical standards. What stood out was its ability to parse arguments granularly, and accurately summarise the broad thrusts of the memo. The bot’s pedantry – it termed the experiment an “audit” – was impressive. At the same time, it made mistakes, which it caught in a self-directed review.
You don’t have to be a spook or a nerd to put the machines to work.
It may well be that at some point in the near future language models become a core part of qualitative research (Opens in new window) and analysis. But obstacles remain.
The first is economics. Frontier model subscriptions are expensive for many in the developing world. There is a real risk that this leads to an uneven playing field between those with access and without. And this diminishes analytical diversity.
The second issue is technical. Model outputs remain stochastic – the same prompt twice can often return slightly different outputs. Mathematicians already had a (non-AI) technology – in the form of proof checkers (Opens in new window) – which can certify the validity of an AI-supplied mathematical answer. This is the main reason why GenAI has found ready allies in that community. No such tool is available to other disciplines.
But the most important obstacle may be sociological. For many analysts and scholars, AI use is viewed pejoratively, tainted by association with intellectual theft. Evangelists must – through words and deeds – demonstrate the gains from transparent and ethical use.
About the author
Abhijnan Rej
Abhijnan Rej is an Indian researcher and writer, the founder of Tarqeq Research LLP and has published extensively on Asian security and geopolitics.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
