Philosophical analysis evaluates the normative risks of AI diplomacy in international relations, highlighting threats of global economic domination and unequal resource distribution.
States, like China, are increasingly engaging in LLM foreign policy : They are using LLMs as foreign-policy tools. Is LLM foreign policy justifiable in Scanlonian terms? I map some of the normative terrain that matters for determining whether it is justifiable to use LLMs as a foreign-policy tool. I argue that the distributive effects of LLM foreign policy affect its justifiability. While LLM foreign policy can alleviate some extant distributive concerns, it can generate novel distributive concerns. We must be sensitive to both when thinking about the justifiability of LLM foreign policy. Furthermore, I argue that we should be sensitive to domination-related considerations when assessing the justifiability of LLM foreign policy. I contend that LLM foreign policy risks exposing some to economic and political domination. I conclude by suggesting that global institutions might be created to mitigate the distributive and domination-related concerns associated with LLM foreign policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ezekiel Vergara (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: