DOI: 10.31038/ALE.2024122

Abstract

This paper is part of a series of papers using generative AI to simulate issues of current importance in the world of nations and their interactions. Through AI and the Mind Genomics platform, BimiLeap.com, one can explore different facets of a situation. The study here on the potential move of China on Taiwan explores the topic from five viewpoints, each simulated by AI, and the entire processing taking less than 24 hours, and at low cost. Phase 1 deals with reconstructing the recent past through simulated interviews with government officials. Phase 2 deals with the mind-sets of the Chinese people regarding Taiwan. Phase 3 projects the future history of the conflict by positioning the simulation in 2030 and simulating one’s recall of events six years before when the conflict between China and Taiwan took place. Phase 4 simulates a congressional hearing to explore the conflict. Phase 5 presents five simulations of what one must do to avoid the problem. The five phases provide an easy-to-understand briefing document, designed to capture the “human face” of the conflict, and involve the reader in critical thinking about issues and solutions.

Keywords

China-Taiwan conflict, Generative AI, Geopolitical issues, International conflict, Mind Genomics

Introduction

The relationship between China and Taiwan has been a contentious issue for decades, with China viewing Taiwan as a rogue province and Taiwan viewing itself as a sovereign state. The conflict has roots in the Chinese Civil War, where the defeated Nationalist Party retreated to Taiwan, establishing a separate government. Despite growing trade and cultural exchanges, political tensions have not fully dissolved. In 2024, tensions are at extreme levels, with China’s President Xi Jinping making increasingly threatening statements about Taiwan’s autonomy. The Chinese people view this as a rightful step to ensure China’s global standing. On the other hand, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen faces immense pressure from both citizens and international allies. The U.S. and other international allies have played a central role in maintaining peace in the region, but the stakes have never been higher. Intensifying espionage and propaganda efforts have driven public sentiment further to extremes, with Chinese media portraying Taiwan as dangerously rebellious and Taiwanese media portraying China as an oppressive neighbor. The future hinges on how long Taiwan can hold out and what the international community is willing to do in its defense [1-3].

Phase 1 — Reconstructing the Past Through Simulated Interviews

Simulating history through imaginary interviews offers profound insights beyond mere facts, allowing for a deeper understanding of the intentions, motivations, tensions, and decisions that might have been obscured in official records or documents. This mode of exploration fosters empathy, deeper understanding of complexities, and a recognition that history is more than a collection of dates and events; it is a narrative shaped by the thoughts, emotions, and actions of individuals and institutions. By placing oneself in the shoes of both the interviewer and the interviewee, one can ask pointed questions that reflect contemporary concerns and imagine the answers through the lens of the individuals involved, reconstructing not just their public- facing personas but their personal doubts, ambitions, and limitations. This exercise in empathy allows for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty and messiness of decisions that might seem inevitable or preventable with the benefit of hindsight [4-6].

Simulated interviews also help to test assumptions, uncovering underlying ideologies, competing narratives, and significant ideological blind spots that governed behavior and choices. They also model a different type of dialogue, allowing for a better understanding of the role of personality and individual agency in history. This approach instills analytical rigor and creative empathy, skills crucial for any student of history. Table 1 shows the instructions to the AI to synthesize the interviews with ten government officials.

Table 1: Simulated interviews about the China-Taiwan situation with 10 government officials.

Phase 2 — Mind-Sets of China Regarding Taiwan

Mind Genomics is an emerging science which identifies different “mind-sets” based on cognitive patterns, preferences, and biases. It suggests that people respond to the same issue in different but predictable ways, not because they are irrational or misinformed. This concept can be applied to geopolitical issues like the China-Taiwan conflict, helping to deconstruct varying viewpoints in China regarding Taiwan’s status and potential actions. Within China, multiple mind- sets exist regarding Taiwan, including nationalistic, historical, economic, and strategic perspectives. Understanding these different mind-sets can help decision-makers craft targeted policies to appeal to specific segments of the population, preventing oversimplification of the complex issue of the China-Taiwan conflict.

Table 2 shows the three mind-sets synthesized by AI. China’s mind- sets regarding Taiwan are influenced by its historical conception of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as its long-standing belief in a unified China dating back to imperial dynasties. The Chinese government views Taiwan as an integral yet temporarily estranged part of the modern Chinese nation-state, with the Taiwan question seen as a symptom of a larger historical trajectory. The Chinese leadership is aware of the political repercussions of losing Taiwan, and any deviation could weaken the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) grip on the narrative. Taiwan’s strategic role in global geopolitical dynamics, particularly its dominance in advanced semiconductor production, further influences Beijing’s approach. China’s approach to Taiwan is long-term, with strategic patience informed by the Confucian principle that “time will solve all problems.” However, the international context is not overlooked, with Taiwan’s close ties to the United States, alliances with Japan, and its pivotal role in the Indo- Pacific strategy. The prevailing mind-set of the Taiwanese people, who overwhelmingly prefer maintaining the current status quo, conflicts with Beijing’s strategy of eventual reunification. Understanding China’s mind-set can help navigate its decision-making processes and understand its complex emotions and motivations [7-9].

Table 2: Mind-sets of China Regarding Taiwan.

Phase 3 — Looking Forward by Looking Backwards: The Experts Recall What Happened Six Years Ago

Edward Bellamy’s novel “Looking Backward” offers a unique approach to understanding the future by imagining it as if it has already occurred. By placing the reader in the year 2000, looking back at the societal transformations that fixed the problems of 1887, Bellamy provides a structured way of imagining possible trajectories and assessing the decisions that lead to certain outcomes. This technique can be applied to the fraught situation between China and Taiwan, as it allows for better analysis and prevention of repeating mistakes.

Bellamy’s method enhances our ability to learn by structuring our critical analysis, allowing us to mentally walk backward and identify key events or errors that determined the future. The immediacy of the China-Taiwan conflict is complicated by militaristic, economic, and geopolitical uncertainties, but by mentally projecting Taiwan as having already been annexed or successfully defended its sovereignty, the outcome can only be understood and studied.

Storytelling is another aspect of “looking backward,” making complex international relations more graspable for everyone involved in the process. By offering a blueprint in the form of an already- imagined outcome, Bellamy effectively shifts the reader toward structured speculation.

Looking backward frames today’s decisions with the weight of historical responsibility while maintaining the speculative flexibility the future demands. By using Bellamy’s method creatively, we may better navigate the tense and dangerous waters of contemporary geopolitics [10-13].

Table 3 presents us the results of ten interviews with individuals who were simulated to be conversant with the issues, and who had opinions about what could have been done better. The approach follows Edward Bellamy’s approach of telling the story of a moderately recent past to foretell the future in a way which is palatable and interesting.

Table 3: Ten interviews about the Chinese move on Taiwan which occurred five years before.

Phase 4 — Questions and Answers at the Congressional Hearing

Simulating a congressional hearing with unnamed professionals recounting their memories of an event like a Chinese move on Taiwan can be an educational and thought-provoking exercise. It allows readers to explore complex foreign-policy issues within a structured context, encouraging critical thinking, engagement with hypothetical expertise, and scenario analysis. This method focuses on roles and expertise rather than individuals, allowing readers to consider the processes and systems that underpin decisions. Table 4 presents the simulated congressional hearing.

Table 4: Simulated questions and answers at a congressional hearing about the Chinese move on Taiwan.

Simulating a congressional hearing can also deepen understanding of contemporary geopolitics and history by placing students in hypothetical situations where they need to apply historical knowledge, critical analysis, and strategic thinking. It also trains students and participants to ask better questions, identifying gaps in knowledge and anticipating the need for further information.

The interdisciplinary nature of the simulation allows readers to understand how disciplines interact in policy decisions, highlighting the union of various domains of expertise in resolving international conflicts. While some may enjoy the freedom of working within fictive or simulated environments, others may find the exercise challenging due to the added responsibility of dealing with a complex situation that has not “actually” happened but could happen in the future.

Ultimately, employing simulations in history and policy classes can nurture analytical skills, leadership potential, and decision-making acumen. A hearing simulation on an event like a Chinese move on Taiwan helps attendees and readers practice working with complex, nuanced issues, serving as an effective preparatory exercise for those who may enter fields in government, law, international relations, or academia where nuanced and critical decisions will be valued [14-16].

Phase 5 — Five “Faces of Prevention”

In times of uncertainty, questions play a crucial role in national security, foreign policy, and crisis management. The unpredictability of information and insights can create tension when different answers create more ambiguity. Consultations from experts from the cabinet and Pentagon bring varied experiences, fields of study, and specializations to the table. Receiving different answers does not necessarily signify the system is failing or confused, but it highlights the reality of complexity and the necessity of pulling from diverse perspectives [17-19].

Repetition of questions can signal attention to the critical nature of the issue, revealing nuances in arguments, gaps in logic, or overlooked information. Inconsistency in responses may give a broader, more comprehensive understanding of the nuances faced, prompting deeper thinking. Table 5 shows four different answers to the same question: What steps should be taken to prevent similar acts of aggression in the future?

Table 5: Five answers to the same question: What steps should be taken to prevent similar acts of aggression in the future?

Discussion and Conclusion

China’s intentions and potential military actions towards Taiwan are a major concern for national security and policymakers worldwide. AI-enabled simulations have been used to study and predict China’s strategies, including triggers, diplomatic channels, military postures, and deterrence scenarios. These simulations provide quicker, more adaptable analyses of complex geopolitical scenarios, allowing policymakers to run multiple “what-if” scenarios that take into account economic pressures, diplomatic relationships, and military movements. However, concerns about overemphasis on AI-based simulations exist, as they may not fully grasp cultural, historical, and deeply embedded political factors. To ensure AI does not dominate the decision-making process, traditional simulation techniques, field experience, and diplomatic insight should be used alongside AI- based simulations. Simulation exercises can help decision-makers better prepare for potential real-world conflicts without endangering national security or international stability.

Acknowledgments

The authors delightedly acknowledge the ongoing help of Vanessa Marie B. Arcenas and Isabelle Porat in the preparation of this manuscript and its companions.

References

1. Amonson K, Egli D (2023) The Ambitious Dragon: Beijing’s Calculus for Invading Taiwan by Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs 6: 37-53.
2. Roy D (2000) Tensions in the Taiwan Survival 42: 76-96.
3. Wang TY (2023) Taiwan in 2022: An Eventful Asian Survey 63: 247-257.
4. Albores P, Shaw D (2008) Government preparedness: Using simulation to prepare for a terrorist Computers & Operations Research 35: 1924-1943.
5. Borning A, Friedman B, Davis J, Lin P (2005) Informing Public Deliberation: Value Sensitive Design of Indicators for a Large-Scale Urban In: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 449-468.
6. DiCicco JM (2014) National Security Council: Simulating Decision-making Dilemmas in Real International Studies Perspectives 15: 438-458.
7. Dweck CS, Yeager DS (2019) Mindsets: A View From Two Eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14: 481-496.
8. Moskowitz H, Kover A, Papajorgji P (2022) Applying Mind Genomics to Social IGI Global.
9. Wu AX (2014) Ideological polarization over a China-as-superpower mind-set: An exploratory charting of belief systems among Chinese internet users, 2008-2011. International Journal of Communication 8: 2650-2679.
10. Berridge V (2016) History and the future: Looking back to look forward? International Journal of Drug Policy 37: 117-121.
11. Franklin JH (1938) Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist The New England Quarterly 11: 739-772.
12. Levi AW (1945) Edward Bellamy: Ethics 55: 131-144.
13. Zhang P (2015) The IS History Initiative: Looking Forward by Looking Communications of the Association for Information Systems 36: 477-514.
14. Kahn MA, Perez KM (2009) The Game of Politics Simulation: An Exploratory Journal of Political Science Education 5: 332-349.
15. Mariani M, Glenn BJ (2014). Simulations Build Efficacy: Empirical Results from a Four-Week Congressional Journal of Political Science Education 10: 284- 301.
16. Rinfret SR, Pautz MC (2015) Understanding Public Policy Making through the Work of Committees: Utilizing a Student-Led Congressional Hearing Simulation. Journal of Political Science Education 11: 442-454.
17. Hart P (2002) Preparing Policy Makers for Crisis Management: The Role of Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 5: 207-215.
18. Hetu SN, Gupta S, Vu VA, Tan G (2018) A simulation framework for crisis management: Design and Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 85: 15-32.
19. Rosenthal U, Pijnenburg B (eds) (1991) Crisis Management and Decision Making: Simulation Oriented Scenarios. Springer Science & Business Media.

DOI: 10.31038/ALE.2024121

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to understand FMI (foreign malign influences) such as disinformation and propaganda. The paper shows how to combine AI with the emerging science of Mind Genomics to put a “human face” on FMI, and through simulation suggest how to counter FMI efforts. The simulations comprise five phases. Phase 1 simulates a series of interviews from people about FMI and their suggestions about how to counter the effects of FMI. Phase 2 simulates questions and answers about FMI, as well as what to expect six months out, and FMI counterattacks. Phase 3 uses Mind Genomics thinking to suggest three mind-sets of people exposed to FMI. Phase 4 simulates being privy to a strategy meeting of the enemy. Phase 5 presents a simulation of a briefing document about FMI, based upon the synthesis of dozens of AI-generated questions and answers. The entire approach presented in the paper can be done in less than 24 hours, using the Mind Genomics platform, BimiLeap.com, with the embedded AI (ChatGPT 3.5) doing several levels of analysis, and with the output rewritten and summarized by AI (QuillBot). The result is a scalable, affordable system, which creates a database which can become part of the standard defense effort.

Keywords

AI simulations, Disinformation, Mind genomics, Foreign malign influences

Introduction: The Age of Information Meets the Agents of Malfeasance

Information warfare is a powerful tool for adversarial governments and non-state actors—with propaganda, fake news, and social media manipulation being key strategies to undermine democracies, particularly the United States. Foreign actors like Russia and China exploit socio-political divides to spread fake news, amplifying racial tensions and cultural clashes. The U.S. government is increasingly concerned about disinformation and propaganda efforts from foreign adversaries, with agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) warning about evolving tactics. The private sector, particularly social media companies, has a key role in countering propaganda but has been criticized for being insufficient. To combat these threats, the U.S. government, social media companies, and civil society organizations need to collaborate effectively, using innovative techniques to detect and counter malign influences without infringing on civil liberties [1-4].

The war on disinformation continues apace. Sustained efforts are evermore vital to preserve the integrity of democratic systems. Malign influences do their evil work through their deliberate use of deceptive or manipulative tactics. The actors may be state or non-state actors, who spread false information, distort public perception, or undermine trust in democratic institutions. Traditional media plays one of two roles, or sometimes both roles. Traditional media either amplifies misinformation by reporting unverified stories or counteracts it by adhering to journalistic standards of fact-checking and verification. The outcome is a tightrope, balancing act, one part being freedom of expression, the other being the structural harm from the willy-nilly acceptance of potentially injurious information. Balancing freedom of expression with the need to protect citizens from harmful deceit can be difficult [5-7].

Strategies currently in use include increased investment in fact- checking initiatives, creating algorithms to detect fake accounts and bots, public awareness campaigns about media literacy, and stricter regulations about political ad funding, respectively. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that challenges remain in detecting and removing disinformation, clearly in part due to the avalanche effect, the sheer volume of content and evolving tactics. Fact-checking can help reduce the spread of false stories, but it is often limited by reach, speed, and the willingness of individuals to believe corrections. Artificial intelligence may identify patterns in disinformation campaigns, flagging suspicious accounts or content, but may struggle to distinguish among opinion, satire, and deliberately harmful misinformation [2,8].

Misinformation can erode trust in traditional media by making it difficult for the public to discern what is true and what is propaganda. Broad laws targeting online speech often raise concerns about censorship and the infringement of free speech. Media literacy programs give people the tools to critically evaluate sources and identify fake news, but they require widespread implementation and can be hindered by existing biases [9-11].

This paper moves the investigation of malign influences such as fake news into the direction of the analysis of the everyday. The paper attempts to put a human face on malign influences by using AI to simulate interactions with people, with questions that people might ask, and with ways that people deal with information sent out by “actors” inimical to the United States. The paper presents AI “exercises” using the Mind Genomics platform, BimiLeap.com.

Phase 1: Putting a Human Face on the Topic Through Snippets of Stories with Recommendations

The psychological principle of presenting a “human face” to issues like foreign malign influences (FMI) resonates with people as they are naturally driven by stories. Simulating interviews with individuals recounting personal struggles with misinformation injects warmth, vulnerability, and relatability, making it easier to feel empathy [12-14]. Building trust and emotional connection is essential in addressing the erosion of trust in media, government, and social institutions. To this end, Table 1 presents 22 short, simulated interviews with ordinary people, as well as the recommendation that they make.

Table 1: AI simulated snippets of interviews and recommendations about FMI (foreign malign influences).

Phase 2: Simulating Advice

AI can be used to generate specific questions and detailed, actionable answers to counter foreign malign influences (FMI). This approach allows for quick identification of common points of intrusion or manipulation by foreign actors, providing an organized strategy to address key vulnerabilities. AI-driven directives prioritize immediate actions, enabling individuals or institutions to respond swiftly to rapid information warfare. AI’s ability to flesh out complex situations while accounting for multiple variables allows it to present tangible alternatives and outcomes with ease through simulation, providing a “what if ” perspective. This actionable level of detail bridges the gap between theory and practice, making recommendations feel natural and embedded in the broader scenario being played out in real-time simulation. The iterative nature of AI allows for constant feedback and improvement, making it better suited to the evolving circumstances of FMIs. AI’s role also provides clarity and simplicity, making it suitable to create directives for targeted messaging campaigns, media outlets, and the general public [15-17].

Table 2 shows questions and answers based on a simple AI “understanding” of the topic, along with additional analyses such as predictions of what might happen six months out, and FMI’s counterstrategy. Information presented in this manner may produce more compelling reading, and a greater likelihood that the issues of FMI end up recognized and then thwarted.

Table 2: Questions, answers, strategies and counterstrategies for FMI efforts.

Phase 3: Mind-sets of People in the United States Exposed to FMI

Mind-sets are stable ways individuals react to stimuli or situations which are shaped by cognitive processes, personal experiences, emotional predispositions, and sociocultural factors [18-21]. AI- generated mind-sets can be crucial for understanding how different people process misleading material, such as the topic of this paper, Foreign Malign Influence (FMI). Machine learning algorithms use clustering methods, unsupervised learning, and statistical analysis to generate or simulate these mind-sets. By feeding AI real-world data, AI can identify distinct groups of people who respond to information in specific ways. This enables predictions on how these groups will behave when confronted with different types of foreign malign influence, making interventions more effective. Table 3 shows the simulation of three mind-sets of individuals responding to FMI information.

Table 3: AI simulation of three mind-sets, created on the basis of how they respond to misinformation presented by the FMI.

Exploring mind-sets in the context of FMI provides insights into social resilience and helps design better defense mechanisms against misinformation. Educational platforms can teach people how to recognize manipulation techniques based on their underlying mind-set. Furthermore, governments, social media companies, and other stakeholders can measure the effectiveness of counter- disinformation campaigns by targeting specific mind-sets and adjusting their message based on real-time feedback or simulation predictions from AI.

Phase 4: Predicting the Future by Looking Backwards

The “Looking Backwards” strategy is an innovative method for predicting trends and outcomes, inspired by Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backwards” process. By mentally placing ourselves in 2030 and reviewing the events of 2024, we can distance ourselves from innate biases, misinformation, anxieties, and uncertainties of the present moment. This mental distance allows for clearer, more holistic insights into the trajectory of ongoing issues, such as foreign malign influences attempting to flood the U.S. with disinformation. Table 4 shows the AI simulation of looking backward from 2030.

Table 4: Predicting the future by looking backward at 2024 from 2030 to see what was done.

By looking back at 2024 from 2030, we can better assess the societal, political, and psychological ramifications of foreign influence operations, especially disinformation campaigns. By identifying the steps taken today that resulted in negative or positive outcomes by 2030, we might adjust our efforts now, fortifying our democratic resilience against foreign ideologies seeking to undermine our stability. This approach also holds potential when shared with the public, as it can help improve resilience and empower the democratic system to remain agile [22-26].

Phase 5: Creating a Briefing Document — Instructing the AI Both to Ask 60 Questions and Then to Summarize Them

In this step AI was instructed to create 60 questions, and provide substantive, detailed answers to each. The questions focused on various aspects regarding the impact of foreign disinformation on public opinion, civic engagement, and stability. These responses were then condensed into a more digestible briefing using summarizing tools like QuillBot [27-29]. This process allows for the inclusion of ideas and hypotheses that might not be immediately apparent to human analysts due to cognitive biases or blind spots [30,31] (Table 5).

Table 5: A simulated “set of five questions briefing document” about FMI, based upon the AI-generated set of 60 questions and answers, followed by an AI summarization of the results.

In the short term, AI-generated answers are objective and free from emotional bias, allowing analysts to base their next moves on data-driven insights. In the long term, AI technologies can be used for long-term planning and resilience strategies, allowing for rapid adjustment to evolving situations and trend recognition. This AI- driven approach also contributes to international cooperation against FMI, fostering a united front against foreign disinformation.

Discussion and Conclusions

The paper shows how the team developed a system using artificial intelligence, Mind Genomics, and real-time simulation capabilities to identify, counteract, and neutralize foreign malign influences (FMI). The system aims to understand the psychological and tactical mechanisms driving disinformation campaigns, and in turn generate strategic responses to reduce their efficacy.

AI simulations mimic real-world strategic meetings, interpersonal interviews, and situational dynamics, revealing the “human face” of the enemy and transforming large volumes of data into actionable intelligence. Mind Genomics thinking creates mind-sets, allowing for the identification of different tactics employed by adversaries. This allows mapping of a psychological landscape, understanding which messages take root and which defensive strategies resonate best with different audience segments. Real-time insights are crucial for adjusting countermeasures in sync with the adversary’s shifting methods.

The system has potential to influence public perception and bolster civic resilience by simulating the actions of enemy actors and the reactions of different segments of society. It could enable preemptive action, enabling policymakers and national security analysts to deploy specific public information campaigns or strategic maneuvers based on projections. The system’s broader geopolitical implications extend beyond national borders, creating a cooperative defense mechanism against foreign powers which exploit misinformation to sow international discord.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the ongoing help of Vanessa Marie B. Arcenas and Isabelle Porat in the creation of this and companion papers.

References

1. O’Connell E (2022) Navigating the Internet’s Information Cesspool, Fake News and What to Do About University of the Pacific Law Review 53(2): 252-269.
2. Schafer JH (2020) International Information Power and Foreign Malign Influence in In: International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security; Academic Conferences International Limited.
3. Weintraub EL, Valdivia CA (2020) Strike and Share: Combatting Foreign Influence Campaigns on Social The Ohio State Technology Law Journal 702-721.
4. Wood AK (2020) Facilitating Accountability for Online Political The Ohio State Technology Law Journal 521-557.
5. Rasler K, Thompson WR (2007) Malign autocracies and major power warfare: Evil, tragedy, and international relations theory. Security Studies 10(3): 46-79.
6. Thompson W (2020) Malign Versus Benign In: Thompson WR (ed.), Power Concentration in World Politics: The Political Economy of Systemic Leadership, Growth, and Conflict. Springer pp. 117-142.
7. Tromblay DE (2018) Congress and Counterintelligence: Legislative Vulnerability to Foreign Influences. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 31(3): 433-450.
8. Lehmkuhl JS (2024) Countering China’s Malign Influence in Southeast Asia: A Revised Strategy for the United Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs 7(3): 139.
9. Bennett WL, Livingston S (2018) The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication 33(2): 122-139.
10. Bennett WL, Lawrence RG, Livingston S (2008) When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to University of Chicago Press.
11. Wagnsson C, Hellman M, Hoyle A (2024) Securitising information in European borders: how can democracies balance openness with curtailing Russian malign information influence? European Security 1-21.
12. Feuston JL, Brubaker JR (2021) Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW2): 1-25.
13. Jiang JA, Wade K, Fiesler C, Brubaker JR (2021) Supporting Serendipity: Opportunities and Challenges for Human-AI Collaboration in Qualitative In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW1): 1-23.
14. Rafner J, Gajdacz M, Kragh G, Hjorth A, et al. (2022) Mapping Citizen Science through the Lens of Human-Centered AI. Human Computation 9(1): 66-95.
15. Aswad EM (2020) In a World of “Fake News,” What’s a Social Media Platform to Do? Utah Law Review 2020(4): 1009.
16. Garon JM (2022) When AI Goes to War: Corporate Accountability for Virtual Mass Disinformation, Algorithmic Atrocities, and Synthetic Propaganda. Northern Kentucky Law Review 49(2): 181-234.
17. Hartmann K, Giles K (2020) The Next Generation of Cyber-Enabled Information 2020 12th International Conference on Cyber Conflict 233-250.
18. Brownsword R (2018) Law and Technology: Two Modes of Disruption, Three Legal MindSets, and the Big Picture of Regulatory Indian Journal of Law and Technology. 14(1): 30-68.
19. Dang J, Liu L (2022) Implicit theories of the human mind predict competitive and cooperative responses to AI Computers in Human Behavior 134: 107300.
20. Moskowitz HR, Gofman A, Beckley J, Ashman H (2006) Founding a New Science: Mind Journal of Sensory Studies 21(3): 266-307.
21. Papajorgji P, Moskowitz H (2023) The ‘Average Person’ Thinking About Radicalization: A Mind Genomics Cartography. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology; 38(2): 369-380.
22. Levinson MH (2005) Mapping the Causes of World War I to Avoid Armageddon ETC: A Review of General Semantics 2(2): 157-164.
23. Rapoport A (1980), Verbal Maps and Global Politics. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 37(4): 297-313.
24. Rapoport A (1986) General Semantics and Prospects for Peace. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 43(1): 4-14.
25. Sadler E (1944) One Book’s Influence Edward Bellamy’s “Looking ” The New England Quarterly 17(4): 530-555.
26. Vincent JE (2011) Dangerous Subjects: US War Narrative, Modern Citizenship, and the Making of National Security 1890-1964 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
27. Bayatmakou F, Mohebi A, Ahmadi A (2022) An interactive query-based approach for summarizing scientific documents. Information Discovery and Delivery 50(2): 176-191.
28. Fan A, Piktus A, Petroni F, Wenzek G, et al. (2020) Generating Fact Checking Briefs. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 7147-7161.
29. Fitria TN (2021) QuillBot as an online tool: Students’ alternative in paraphrasing and rewriting of English writing. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities 9(1): 183-196.
30. Radev DR, Hovy E, McKeown K (2002) Introduction to the Special Issue on Computational Linguistics 28(4): 399-408.
31. Safaei M, Longo J (2024) The End of the Policy Analyst? Testing the Capability of Artificial Intelligence to Generate Plausible, Persuasive, and Useful Policy Analysis. Digital Government: Research and Practice 5(1): 1-35.

DOI: 10.31038/ALE.2024114

Abstract

The paper introduces the use of AI coupled with Mind Genomics technology (BimiLeap.com) to understand the topic of how countries think about the U.S.’ position on nuclear deterrence. The entire exercise is done using AI (ChatGPT 3.5), with the BimiLeap.com platform. The five sections cover a broad range of aspects for the topic, and are set up to be rapid, cost effective, easy to do, and in some respects, virtually automatic. The results presented in this paper required approximately six hours to generate, including the initial and secondary AI analyses. The range of aspects goes from simulated “listening to enemy strategy meetings” to key emerging ideas, and onto AI-suggested innovations, expected responses by different audiences, and finally suggested questions and both optimistic and pessimistic answers. The paper is presented as an approach, with the topics easy to change, and the scalability straightforward to demonstrate.

Keywords

AI-generated simulations, Mind Genomics, Nuclear deterrence, Strategic signaling

Introduction

The U.S.’ nuclear arsenal is a crucial part of its strategic defense, but its lack of open threat to nations has led to aggressive postures. To revise defense signals without compromising global stability or reputation, U.S. policymakers must evolve strategic signaling, including bolstering military presence, conducting high-profile exercises, and issuing diplomatic statements. Monitoring hostile nations’ rhetoric and consistent communication of “red lines” is crucial for effective nuclear deterrence. AI simulation and Mind Genomics thinking offer a powerful tool to understand high-level strategic discussions in the minds of nation-states. AI simulation platforms can analyze geopolitical data and simulate decision- making processes based on historical patterns, key events, and diplomatic or military postures. Mind Genomics, the study of how individuals or groups structure their thinking and interpret the world, can codify the thought processes of leaders and policymakers. By merging these technologies, the U.S. can simulate different nations’ responses to various U.S. actions, such as bolstering military presence, conducting strategic exercises, or issuing diplomatic statements [1,2]. This approach can break down a nation’s strategic rationale into cognitive and cultural predispositions, enabling more accurate forecasts of a nation’s response to U.S. policy changes [3,4]. It can also function as a form of strategic empathy, enabling the U.S. to craft tailored policies.

Phase 1: Simulating Private Strategy Discussions Among Opponents of the USA

AI-driven simulations of enemy conversations can provide valuable insights into American policy and strategy development (Table 1). By role-playing the enemy’s perspective, AI can anticipate potential threats and understand weaknesses in American policies [2]. This predictive insight can mitigate risks and enhance national defense mechanisms [5]. AI simulations can also expose blind spots within current strategic thinking, revealing perspectives that American strategists may not see naturally. This effort can fuel defensive preparedness and negotiation tactics [6]. AI simulations can compress time and offer predictive outcomes based on potential decisions, allowing agencies to respond in real-time to threats while staying ahead of competitors [7,8]. However, there are risks and limitations to AI-assisted simulations. One issue is over-reliance on technology and algorithms instead of human judgment and intuition. AI algorithms may not have human motivations, emotions, or spontaneity, leading to irrational or emotional decisions. Additionally, AI simulations may not reflect real discussions due to human factors. Despite these limitations, AI-assisted simulations can enhance understanding, decision-making speed, and avoid blind spots.

Table 1: AI simulation of an overheard “enemy” discussion about American nuclear policy.

Phase 2: Key Ideas Emerging

The key ideas in the topic questions revolve around the concept of U.S. nuclear deterrence and strategic signaling — focusing on how the United States can communicate its readiness to use military force, including nuclear weapons, to deter adversaries without explicitly threatening them [9-12]. These key ideas emphasize the delicate balance the United States must maintain in its nuclear deterrence strategy, combining visible military strength with subtle diplomatic moves to ensure that its adversaries perceive its willingness to defend its interests while avoiding global instability. Table 2 shows 12 key ideas emerging from the simulation present in Table 1 and a subsequent AI- based analysis by the Mind Genomics platform, BimiLeap.com.

Table 2: Key ideas emerging from the AI simulation of an enemy strategy meeting, and then a second and further AI analysis. The analyses were done by the Mind Genomics platform, BimiLeap.com.

Phase 3: Innovations in Products and Services

The themes associated with U.S. nuclear deterrence and strategic signaling offer several conceptual frameworks for developing new products, services, or experiences [13-15]. Table 3 presents products and services suggested by AI, based upon the material presented in Tables 1 and 2. The AI further evaluated the information in both Tables, and generated the suggestions in Table 3.

Table 3: Innovation in products and services, suggested by AI, and based upon the information shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Phase 4: The Different Players (Positive Versus Negative Audiences)

Several distinct audiences would have a strong interest in the topic questions, each bringing a unique perspective based on their professional, academic, or geopolitical involvements [16-18]. These audiences are shown in Table 4 and comprise both those who are “interested” and those who are not interested, viz., possibly “hostile.” Once again, the analysis was done after the fact, in a second pass through the data to provide more insight by AI.

Table 4: Positive and negative audiences.

Phase 5: AI-Generated Questions and Answers for Further Thought

The AI was presented with the situation presented in Table 2. The AI was instructed to create questions, and then give both an optimistic answer and a pessimistic answer to the same question. Table 5 shows the results. The benefit here is that the AI can generate a great number of questions in a short time and provide answers [4,19-21].

Table 5: AI generated questions and two answers for each question; optimistic versus pessimistic, respectively.

Discussion and Conclusions

AI combined with Mind Genomics works as a safe testing ground where various communication scenarios — words, actions, or threats— can be “played forward” to understand precisely how they may backfire, escalate tensions, or bring about desired mediations. Such tools would also enable the U.S. to make faster, informed decisions in unprecedented crises, whether arising from smaller rogue nations or larger superpowers. By anticipating hostile rhetoric, understanding a nation’s internal political conditions, and knowing exactly where the “red lines” fall, AI simulations can precisely calculate the tipping point at which a country might enter an irreversible aggressive stance. Thus, this system works like a blueprint for creating not only stronger deterrence policies but also more effective diplomatic resolutions. Finally, the long-term potential of these simulations lies in their ability to integrate into international consensus-building. For deterrence to be effective, it must not only be unilateral but shared among allies. This enhanced AI and Mind Genomics model could be a framework that multiple democratic governments employ to analyze the decisions of shared adversaries. In doing so, the U.S. would gain not only tactical advantages but help contribute to a shared platform of predictive thinking, ensuring stability and global peace.

Based upon the AI exercise reported here, the key ideas related to U.S. nuclear deterrence and strategic signaling can be grouped into six distinct themes:

Perception and Willingness

Perceptions of U.S. Willingness to Use Nuclear Weapons. Some adversaries doubt the U.S.’ willingness to use nuclear weapons, leading to questions about the effectiveness of its deterrent posture.

Actions and Military Readiness

Actions to Signal Deterrence. The U.S. can engage in military actions such as exercises, missile testing, and tough diplomatic messaging to show its readiness and resolve. These actions not only test U.S. readiness, but they are also key components in strategic signaling to deter adversaries.

Diplomatic Efforts and Communication

Importance of Diplomatic Language. Strategic use of diplomatic language can underscore U.S. seriousness without escalating tensions. Diplomatic support of public signaling is pivotal, both with adversaries and allies, ensuring that messages are clearly communicated through multiple channels. Establishing and clearly communicating red lines helps avoid ambiguity and ensures adversaries are clear about the consequences of crossing thresholds.

Adversary Reactions and Feedback

Adversaries’ denouncements, such as accusing the U.S. of “escalation,” might paradoxically indicate that U.S. signaling is effective and being acknowledged. Visible shifts in rhetoric or behavior toward calls for diplomacy from adversaries can be viewed as signs of effective deterrence.

Geopolitical Assessment and Strategy Adjustment

Strategic signaling must be informed by constant assessments of adversarial military activities and propaganda to ensure proper messaging and deterrent force are applied. Signs of successful deterrence include adversaries scaling down aggressive maneuvers and showing a willingness to negotiate.

Failures, Escalation, and Risk Management

If adversaries respond to U.S. signaling with increased military presence or aggression, it points to a failure in deterrence, necessitating strategic recalibration. The U.S. must strike a balance between projecting sufficient strength to deter adversaries without causing unintended escalation or regional destabilization.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the ongoing help of Vanessa Marie B. Arcenas and Isabelle Porat in the preparation of this and companion manuscripts.

References

1. Cox J, Williams H (2021) The Unavoidable Technology: How Artificial Intelligence Can Strengthen Nuclear The Washington Quarterly 44(1): 69-85.
2. Davis PK, Bracken P (2022) Artificial intelligence for wargaming and The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology.
3. Horowitz M, Kania EB, Allen GC, Scharre P (2018) Strategic Competition in an Era of Artificial Center for a New American Security.
4. Johnson J (2021) Deterrence in the age of artificial intelligence & autonomy: a paradigm shift in nuclear deterrence theory and practice? Defense & Security Analysis 36: 422-448.
5. Goldfarb A, Lindsay JR (2022) Prediction and Judgment: Why Artificial Intelligence Increases the Importance of Humans in War. International Security 46: 7-50.
6. Johnson J (2019) Artificial intelligence & future warfare: implications for international Defense & Security Analysis 35: 147-169.
7. Layton P (2021) Fighting Artificial Intelligence Battles: Operational Concepts for Future AI-Enabled Joint Studies Paper Series, 4.
8. Turnitsa C, Blais C, Tolk A (2022) Simulation and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9. Borges AF, Laurindo FJ, Spínola MM, Gonçalves RF, et (2021) The strategic use of artificial intelligence in the digital era: Systematic literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Information Management 57: 102225.
10. Flournoy MA, Lyons RP (2016) Sustaining and Enhancing the US Military’s Technology Strategic Studies Quarterly 10: 3-14.
11. Morgan FE, Boudreaux B, Lohn AJ, Ashby M, et (2020) Military Applications of Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Concerns in an Uncertain World. RAND Corporation.
12. Stone M, Aravopoulou E, Ekinci Y, Evans G, et (2020) Artificial intelligence (AI) in strategic marketing decision-making: a research agenda. The Bottom Line 33: 183- 200.
13. Mühlroth C, Grottke M (2020) Artificial Intelligence in Innovation: How to Spot Emerging Trends and Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 99: 1-18.
14. Sayler, KM (2020) Artificial Intelligence and National Security. Congressional Research Service, R45178.
15. Scharre P (2023) Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial W.W. Norton & Company.
16. Ali MB, Wood-Harper T (2022) Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a Decision-Making Tool to Control Crisis Situations. In: Ali M (ed.), Future Role of Sustainable Innovative Technologies in Crisis Management, IGI Global,. 71-83.
17. Johnson J (2021) Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare: The USA, China, and Strategic Manchester University Press.
18. Tsotniashvili Z (2024) Silicon Tactics: Unravelling the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Information Battlefield of the Ukraine Asian Journal of Research 9: 54-64.
19. Aydin Ö, Karaarslan E (2023) Is ChatGPT Leading Generative AI? What is Beyond Expectations? Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Smart Systems 11: 118-134.
20. Ehsan U, Wintersberger P, Liao QV, Mara M, et (2021) Operationalizing Human- Centered Perspectives in Explainable AI. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-6.
21. Rospigliosi P (2023) Artificial intelligence in teaching and learning: what questions should we ask of ChatGPT? Interactive Learning Environments 31: 1-3.