Soft power is a notoriously difficult term to understand, meaning it is often misinterpreted and misused. The concept is often equated with cultural power, the appeal of a country to foreign audiences in the form of lifestyle, cuisine, fashion, music, cinema, etc. Although reductive, this interpretation reaches the general public. More specifically, Joseph Nye, the scholar who coined the term, describes it as “the ability to achieve desired results through attraction rather than through coercion or payment.” This is not simple, and it may also be an overly positive way of understanding the dynamics surrounding the power of attraction. Soft power is neither good nor bad in itself, but it is nevertheless a form of power that can be misused and abused. How does AI – as large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT – understand soft power? And why this question is more significant than it seems at first glance.
These models rely on “off-the-shelf” information (i.e. the Internet), so they typically combine and summarize knowledge that is already available, but they are currently less effective at creating new ideas. However, when pushed beyond the definitions of parrot found in the literature, they can reveal insightful patterns resulting from the discourse surrounding the term, as a form of “collective knowledge” and understanding of this elusive concept. In other words, LLMs can quickly connect the dots and the results, as this article aims to show, can be as informative as they are worrying.
After an initial attempt to ask some commonly available AI platforms (e.g., OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot, and Perplexity) to define soft power and after receiving slight variations of the Nye’s definition, I asked them to respond: “Provide a speculative approach. definition of soft power that is not found in the literature. While I am by no means a ready expert and this question could have been asked in a variety of more nuanced and specific ways, the results were still quite revealing.
Towards ChatGPT, soft power
can be seen as the passive magnetism exerted by a state or entity, rooted in its cultural, ideological and political appeal, which unconsciously shapes the aspirations, identities and preferences of other actors over time. This form of influence, unlike coercion or persuasion, operates at a latent level, rooted in the emotional and psychological frameworks of societies, promoting alignment through admiration and emulation rather than strategy. deliberate or direct interaction. Soft power is more subtle, more diffuse, and more emotionally resonant, almost like a background influence that seeps into the consciousness of other states or peoples over time and may be so entrenched that it is not actively recognized or debated by those who are influenced.
For Gemini, soft power is
the ability of a country or entity to shape the global narrative through the strategic manipulation of information and perception. It is a form of influence that transcends traditional diplomacy and involves shaping the way others see and understand the world. This definition suggests that soft power is not just about attraction or persuasion, but also about controlling the information environment and manipulating perceptions. This involves a more active and aggressive approach to influence, likely to blur the lines between diplomacy and covert operations.
For Copilot, soft power
can be understood as the subtle orchestration of cultural and ideological resonances that aligns the intrinsic values and aspirations of different societies, creating a harmonious influence that transcends traditional diplomatic and economic interactions. This form of power exploits the emotional and psychological connections between people, fostering a sense of shared destiny and mutual respect that naturally guides international cooperation and understanding.
Finally, at Perplexity – a more factual and source-centric platform – soft power
can be conceptualized as a dynamic influence ecosystem, where the interplay of cultural narratives, social media engagement, and transnational networks creates a fluid space of persuasion and attraction. Soft power is not simply the ability to attract or co-opt, but an ever-evolving system that adapts to the changing preferences and values of global audiences. This ecosystem is nourished by the reciprocal relationships formed between actors – whether states, organizations or individuals – where influence is cultivated through shared experiences, emotional resonance and mutual understanding.
However, he cautions that “this definition also implies that soft power can be both a tool for collaboration and a potential source of conflict, as competing narratives vie for attention and allegiance in an interconnected world.” .
While none of the above completely redefine the term, there are several takeaways, both shared and unique. To begin with, the psychological factor is strongly present, emphasizing the subconscious level and how perceptions can be (strategically) manipulated in various ways, moving towards what has been termed deceptive “acute power”. . In the same way, the narrative aspect – which we find in literature – is highlighted, highlighting how controlling it can lead to favorable outcomes, but also to conflicts. Interestingly, two LLMs mention how soft power “transcends” traditional diplomacy, although in one case it is equated with covert operations, a rare connection. Notably, these definitions not only push the boundaries of soft power beyond attraction and persuasion, but also highlight its manifestations. These are not new, but they may reflect a growing feeling that we find in “available” information (i.e. on the Internet): we are increasingly abusing soft power to seduce and deception in lieu of more benign and genuine promotion and elevation of oneself. Concerning relatively new aspects, “passive magnetism” relies on attraction and attraction, but implies that it cannot be cultivated because it is a form of “background influence”, sort of downplaying proactive strategies to pursue it, like public diplomacy. This is hardly the case, but it is somehow linked to alarming secret agendas, present but unacknowledged. Understanding soft power as a “dynamic ecosystem of influence” is even more innovative, but perhaps not very useful in getting rid of the abstract aura of the term that makes it difficult to grasp. That said, this interpretation calls into question the need for oversimplification, such as recent attempts to “unleash all soft power” through quantum analysis of IR, suggesting instead to accept the complexity.
In conclusion, this brief article aimed to show how LLMs can provide a snapshot of the sentiment of the times in relation to the understanding of specific concepts and phenomena, while also having the potential to highlight new patterns and perspectives. In the case of soft power, it seems that covert abuse and manipulation of narratives are becoming increasingly important. It is up to leaders and policymakers to embrace or resist this trend, while keeping in mind that the vast majority of soft power successes arise from genuine pull dynamics, not deception.
Further Reading on International Electronic Relations