The Brief with Maya Plentz

Maya Plentz
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Tech News
  • Weekly

This is *the* podcast for diplomats, tech executives, investors, UN and EU officials that are changing the world through dialogue and are using emerging technologies for good. theunbrief.substack.com

  1. 9h ago

    World Health Organization: The Race for Next Director-General is On | Alba Health: How Your Microbiome Holds the Key to Your Health

    The future of medicine is personalized By Maya Plentz Joining us at THE BRIEF is Nora Cavani, molecular biologist and co-founder and CEO of Alba Health, which combines gut microbiome testing with personalized nutrition guidance for families. Alba Health is backed by venture capital, among them the founder of the consumer health monitoring device, OURA ring. A former Boston Consulting Group manager, Nora turned her own experience of severe eczema into a mission to improve cgut microbiome health. She has raised €5 million for Alba Health and earned recognition as Female Founder of the Year at The Europas TechCrunch Award in 2024, and Female Entrepreneur of the Year in Sweden, in 2026. In my recent conversation with Nora Cavani, founder and CEO of Swedish health-tech startup Alba Health, she shared how analyzing the gut microbiome is shifting healthcare from reactive symptom management to targeted, early-life prevention. Fresh off a €5 million funding round to scale operations across Europe, Alba Health is proving that decoding our unique internal ecosystems can transform long-term human health. A Personal Turning Point: Root-Cause Healing Cavani’s path to founding Alba Health began at the intersection of deep domain expertise and personal crisis. With a background in biotechnology and pharmaceutical engineering, followed by six years at Boston Consulting Group advising on probiotics and gut microbiome applications, she was well-versed in the literature. Yet at age 27, she was blindsided by severe, full-body eczema that left her in chronic pain around the clock. After conventional medical treatments failed to deliver lasting relief, Cavani systematically altered her diet and rebalanced her gut microbiome. The result was life-changing: her eczema went into complete remission, her energy rebounded, and her chronic symptoms disappeared. That recovery prompted a critical question: Can we identify and correct these microbial imbalances early enough to prevent allergic diseases from developing in the first place? The Pediatric Window of Opportunity Allergic conditions, eczema, and asthma often share a common origin in early childhood, where the gut microbiome plays a foundational role in training the developing immune system. Modern environmental and lifestyle shifts have severely disrupted this balance: today, up to 90% of infants lack key gut bacteria vital for early immune resilience. Alba Health approaches this challenge through the lens of the entire family. While testing often begins with a symptomatic infant or child, long-term interventions succeed when parents understand and adjust their own microbiomes and household nutrition alongside their children. Decoding the Gut: Beyond Generic Advice Personalized medicine requires granular data and targeted interventions rather than blanket dietary recommendations. Alba Health combines diagnostic precision with continuous behavioral support: * Age-calibrated diagnostics: Non-invasive, at-home stool tests tailored to specific age cohorts from newborns and toddlers to teenagers and adults. * In-depth profiling: Pairing advanced microbiome sequencing with detailed health and lifestyle questionnaires. * Independent product matching: Providing actionable plans that recommend targeted third-party probiotic strains without taking affiliate commissions or pushing proprietary formulations. * Continuous digital guidance: A 12-month companion app that delivers personalized recipes and visual meal feedback to help families implement sustainable dietary changes. Bridging the Clinical Gap to Scale Across Europe Backed by venture capital and health-tech pioneers, including the founder of Oura Ring, Alba Health is expanding from its direct-to-consumer roots into clinical partnerships. While direct testing offers immediate accessibility for approximately £250, Cavani’s long-term goal is integration into formal healthcare systems. Achieving that scale requires dismantling legacy perceptions. The assumption that microbiome science remains too nascent for clinical utility is rapidly becoming obsolete, with annual scientific publications surging from a few hundred to over 20,000 in recent years. By pairing rigorous science with accessible digital health tools, medical practitioners are gaining the data necessary to treat the individual rather than the aggregate average. When we personalize healthcare from the very first years of life, we do more than manage chronic illness—we lay the groundwork for a lifetime of resilience. THE BRIEF | Global Health & Diplomacy | 2 November 2026 Who Will Lead the World Health Organization? Seven Candidates, Seven Governments and a High-Stakes Election As WHO prepares to elect a successor to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in May 2027, the race is taking shape around competing visions of institutional reform, financing, pandemic preparedness and global health diplomacy. Spain’s María Neira brings more than three decades of international health experience and an unusual grassroots coalition to the contest. Geneva, 2 November 2026 — THE BRIEF The World Health Organization officially announced seven candidates for Director-General on 29 October 2026, launching one of the most consequential leadership contests in the organization’s recent history. The successor to Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus will inherit an institution confronting financial constraints, reductions in international health assistance, geopolitical divisions and continuing disputes over pandemic preparedness. Seven candidates have been nominated by seven governments: Spain, Belgium, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, China and Botswana. Five are women. The field includes two serving WHO regional directors, two former senior government health officials, a sitting Indonesian health minister, a senior Chinese public-health official and an Armenian paediatric oncologist nominated by an African government. The election is not a straightforward popularity contest. The 34-member WHO Executive Board will first narrow the field to five, interview them and nominate up to three finalists. The final decision will be made by eligible Member States through a secret ballot at the World Health Assembly in May 2027. The candidates María P. Neira — Spain Nominated by: Government of Spain, 23 September 2026. Profile: Physician, former Spanish vice-minister of health, and former WHO Director of Environment, Climate Change and Health. María Neira, born in Asturias in 1962, is one of the most experienced international public-health specialists competing for the post. She graduated in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Oviedo and subsequently specialized in endocrinology and metabolic diseases in Paris. She also completed a master’s degree in public health at Université Pierre et Marie Curie, studies in human nutrition and an international diploma in emergency preparedness and crisis management at the University of Geneva. Her professional career began well outside the diplomatic meeting rooms of Geneva. Between 1987 and 1989, she worked with Médecins Sans Frontières in refugee camps along Honduras’s borders with El Salvador and Nicaragua, coordinating medical care in communities affected by armed conflict. She subsequently worked on public health in Mozambique and served as a UN public-health adviser and physician in Rwanda. Her responsibilities encompassed disease surveillance, epidemics, sanitation, nutrition, maternal and child health and emergency care. Neira joined WHO in the early 1990s, initially coordinating its Global Task Force on Cholera Control. She subsequently headed the department responsible for the control, prevention and eradication of communicable diseases, including programmes targeting neglected tropical diseases. Between 2002 and 2005, she returned to Madrid, serving as vice-minister of health and consumer affairs and president of Spain’s Food Safety Agency. Her government responsibilities included nutrition, food safety and prevention of obesity and chronic dis… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

  2. Oct 19

    Slowing Down AI at the UN

    Watch my interview with Ian Richards. The United Nations Secretariat is reinforcing restrictions on the use of generative artificial intelligence, instructing staff to use institutionally approved AI tools rather than independently accessing platforms such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude for professional purposes. Ian Richards, a prominent advocate for UN staff interests, has raised concerns about the restrictions, questioning how the organization expects employees to develop sophisticated AI capabilities while limiting their access to competing technologies. In a LinkedIn post, Richards reported that IT departments were communicating restrictions covering both installed applications and browser-based access within the UN Secretariat’s working environment. He said Microsoft Copilot remains the authorized option under an organization-wide Microsoft agreement. The directive is not entirely new. On 5 March 2025, the UN Office of Information and Communications Technology issued updated guidance specifying that Copilot Chat was the only authorized free generative AI chatbot for routine work-related tasks. The policy concerns professional use within the UN Secretariat, not a universal prohibition across every UN agency, fund and programme, some of which operate under separate technology-governance arrangements. Richards argues that the restrictions expose a contradiction at the heart of the UN’s modernization agenda. Through UN 2.0, the Quintet of Change and the UN80 reform initiative, the organization has promoted digital transformation, stronger data capabilities, innovation and artificial intelligence as instruments for improving institutional performance. Yet staff seeking to experiment with specialized AI platforms can face lengthy approval processes. In an earlier post, Richards described requirements involving senior management endorsement, review by the Office of Information and Communications Technology, a cross-functional working group on generative AI and potentially the Architecture Review Board. Such procedures, he argued, risk discouraging employees who are developing applications, automating workflows or using AI for more sophisticated analytical tasks. The Secretariat has legitimate reasons to impose safeguards. UN personnel handle confidential diplomatic communications, sensitive information about humanitarian beneficiaries, personnel records and material protected by institutional privileges and immunities. Uploading such information to unauthorized external systems could expose the organization to serious privacy, cybersecurity and legal risks. But restricting staff to one approved commercial ecosystem raises additional questions about technological dependency, procurement, competition and access to specialized capabilities. Copilot itself uses large language models, including technology developed by OpenAI. The relevant distinction is therefore not simply which company develops an AI model, but the contractual protections, data-handling arrangements and administrative controls governing its use. The controversy emerges as the UN seeks to modernize its operations under mounting financial pressure and demands for greater institutional efficiency. Artificial intelligence could help staff accelerate document analysis, process large datasets, improve translation workflows and develop digital services. Yet these benefits require practical training, secure infrastructure and appropriate access to technology. Richards warns that overly restrictive policies could prevent staff from pursuing precisely the high-value applications that institutional reform is supposed to encourage. For the United Nations, the challenge is no longer whether artificial intelligence should be used. It is how to establish credible safeguards without discouraging innovation or concentrating institutional capabilities within a single technology provider. As the UN promotes global AI governance, its own internal policies are becoming a test of whether it can reconcile technological innovation, institutional accountability and operational security. Sources: IUnited Nations Office of Information and Communications Technology, Updated UN Guidance on the Use of AI Tools at Work, 5 March 2025. #TheBrief #UnitedNations #ArtificialIntelligence #UNGeneva #UN80 #AIGovernance #DigitalTransformation #MicrosoftCopilot This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

  3. Oct 4

    Weekend Edition | The Radical Realism of Alexander Zeldin | The Other Place: After Antigone

    Who belongs on a stage? Whose experiences deserve the time, attention and resources of a major cultural institution such as the National Theater? In the work of British writer and director Alexander Zeldin, temporary workers, families in emergency accommodation, mothers struggling to keep their children, and older people dependent on care occupy center stage. Through these lives, he explores how economic insecurity and intimate relationships shape one another and how people continue to seek connection under difficult conditions. He goes back to the fundamentals of theater, the spoken word, emotion. His relationship with London’s National Theatre has been central to the development and visibility of this work. Beyond Caring, first staged at the Yard Theatre in 2014, transferred to the National in 2015. LOVE opened there in December 2016, and Zeldin became its Artist in Residence in 2017. Faith, Hope and Charity, which premiered at the National in 2019, completed his Inequalities trilogy. Together, these productions brought experiences often discussed through statistics and public policy into the shared space of a theatre. Beyond Caring follows temporary workers on a night shift in a food preparing factory. The setting makes precarious employment tangible: people must navigate exhaustion, unfamiliar colleagues and the uncertainty of work that offers little security. Zeldin’s choice of subject asks audiences to attend to people whose labour sustains everyday life, while their own lives receive relatively little public attention. In LOVE, the focus moves to temporary accommodation in the days before Christmas. A middle-aged man and his elderly mother, a young family expecting a baby, and a woman newly arrived from Sudan find themselves sharing cramped space. Privacy becomes scarce; ordinary routines require negotiation. The premise places housing insecurity alongside the practical and emotional work of caring for another person. Faith, Hope and Charity brings us into a struggling community hall, where meals are prepared for people in need and a volunteer starts a choir. A mother seeks help as she fights to prevent her daughter from being taken into care. These encounters invite us to consider the fragile networks of support that hold a community together—and what happens when people must rely on generosity to meet essential needs. Read together, the trilogy raises a question about the National Theatre’s public role: how can a national institution make room for people who have little influence over the way their lives are represented? Zeldin’s work offers one approach through sustained research and collaboration. His documented creative process has involved unions, organisations supporting low-paid workers, families and refugees living in homeless shelters, and mothers interacting with the care system. Their experiences inform a lengthy process that continues through rehearsals. He has also explored the relationship between trained actors and performers who come to theatre without professional experience. That practice provides useful context for understanding his theatre. Close observation carries ethical weight: the details of someone’s speech, relationships and daily routines can reveal what broad social categories leave out. His early work with Peter Brook and Marie-Hélène Estienne is another significant part of his formation. Zeldin worked as their assistant director during the period between 2011 and 2014. His publisher’s biography specifically records his assistance on their 2013 revival of A Magic Flute. This was practical experience alongside two major theatre-makers, during years when he was also developing his own projects and relationships with actors. That connection offers a valuable perspective on his subsequent work, although the precise lessons he drew from it deserve to be described in his own words. An interpretation of Zeldin’s plays is that their power rests on the quality of attention they demand: attention to a person, to an encounter, and to what becomes visible when an audience spends time with lives it might otherwise pass by. His company expresses its purpose in a concise phrase: “Theatre is to bring the world closer.” It is a useful starting point for considering a body of work concerned with distance—between social groups, between family members, and between what people experience and what others are prepared to recognise. The National Theatre relationship continued with The Confessions, which played there in 2023. Inspired by his mother’s life, the production traces a woman’s journey from Australia to London across eight decades. Developed through hours of interviews and co-commissioned by the National, it explores the relationship between an individual life and the times through which it unfolds. In The Other Place: After Antigone, which premiered at the National Theatre in 2024, Zeldin turns to Sophocles through a contemporary family conflict. Two sisters reunite on the anniversary of their father’s death. Their uncle has remodelled the family home, but the prospect of a fresh start is disrupted by a demand for justice and acknowledgement. Grief, guilt and competing visions of the future make the home a contested space. My reading of this progression is that the family becomes another setting in which questions of power and recognition take shape. Who can determine what happens next? Whose suffering is acknowledged? Who gets to decide that the past should be put away? After performances at The Shed in New York earlier this year and at the Théâtre de la Ville in Paris in September, The Other Place comes to the Comédie de Genève from 8 to 14 October 2026. His latest play, CARE, presented at London’s Young Vic in 2026, returns to ageing and dependence. Following a grandmother’s fall and her move into a care home, it explores loneliness, family relationships and the possibility of joy amid loss. It extends a recurring concern in his work: how people preserve connection when circumstances diminish their control over everyday life. Zeldin established A Zeldin Company in 2019 and Compagnie A Zeldin in France in 2022 to produce and circulate his work internationally. France named him a Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres in 2024. His career now spans theatre, film and an extensive network of international productions and collaborations. Across that work, one invitation remains compelling: spend time with these people. Notice how they live, what they need, and what they offer one another. For an audience accustomed to discussing inequality, housing and care through policy, Zeldin’s theatre provides an encounter with their human consequences. It gives those experiences duration, presence and a place in our collective attention. #AlexanderZeldin #NationalTheatre #PeterBrook #TheOtherPlace #ComédieDeGenève #Theatre #Culture #THEBRIEF This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

  4. Sep 29

    This Week at the UN

    Sunday, 27 September Let’s talk about AI and sustainability on World Tourism Day. Monday, 28 September In Geneva, Sustainable Energy Week of the Economic Commission for Europe will take place at the Palais des Nations from 28 September to 1 October, including the 35th session of the Committee on Sustainable Energy. In Rome, the 28th session of the Committee on Forestry of the Food and Agriculture Organization will take place at FAO Headquarters from 28 September to 2 October. Tuesday, 29 September In Geneva, the World Intellectual Property Organization released the 2026 edition of the Global Innovation Index at a hybrid event at WIPO Headquarters. Thursday, 1 October We mark International Day of Older Persons and International Coffee Day. Have a coffee with your elderly neighbor or your grandmother. In Geneva, the eleventh meeting of States parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture will be held at the Palais des Nations at 10:00 a.m. (Geneva time), to elect thirteen members of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. Friday, 2 October At 10:00 a.m., the New York session of the Future of Money, Governance and the Law Summit will be held on the impact of artificial intelligence, blockchain and quantum technology on financial services. The World Health Organization will release its latest Global Health Estimates, with updated data through 2023 on life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, mortality and morbidity, as well as burden of disease at global, regional and country levels. Want to play diplomat? Here is your chance. Watch my interview with Model UN lead William Yotive, on the history of Model UN, and its evolution since the inception in 1943, and the new Global Health Model UN in partnership with the World Health Organisation. From Bloomberg, a bit of humor in these dark times: “True Believers “It’s totally a cult. It’s so cool. I love it.” Nicolas Duran de Leon Model UN participant The real United Nations is battling shrinking budgets, political attacks and questions about its relevance. Model UN, meanwhile, is thriving, with participation rebounding as students flock to play diplomat.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

    This Week at the UN

  5. Sep 19

    Weekend Edition: US Constitutional History Course | Listen to my interview with Harvard Professor Thomas E. Patterson

    This edition is packed with food for thought on AI, statecraft, and history, so pull-up a chair, hang the hammock, stretch your legs, and listen. Listen to my interview with Harvard Professor Thomas E. Patterson Here is my interview with Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government & the Press, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, and the link to his online class on US Constitutional History. He is the author of “How America Lost Its Mind: The Assault on Reason That’s Crippling Our Democracy”. US National Constitution Day was marked on Sept. 17—a day that passes largely unnoticed despite its significance at this moment in history—here is a nonpartisan HarvardX online course on the U.S. Constitution. It’s designed for a broad audience and delivered in six short modules (about 30 minutes each) covering the Constitution’s history, separation of powers, federalism, and the Bill of Rights. Here’s the link: https://bit.ly/FreeCourseHarvard (select ‘audit’ option for free version) The US Constitution was designed to limit power—but its survival depends on more than the words written in 1787. In my interview with Harvard Professor Thomas E. Patterson, we discuss the historical forces that shaped the Constitution, the balance between the branches of government and why constitutional safeguards remain central to American democracy. Listen to the interview and explore Professor Patterson’s course on US constitutional history: #USConstitution #Democracy #RuleOfLaw #AmericanHistory #THEBRIEFBecome a paid subscriber for access to interviews with leaders in technology, finance, international organizations, and diplomats. Slow AI Can the world slow frontier AI while geopolitical competition continues to reward acceleration? Calls for international coordination are colliding with export controls, military competition, national-security concerns and the commercial race to build the most powerful systems. The United States wants to preserve its technological advantage. China rejects restrictions it sees as attempts to contain its development. Companies fear that slowing independently will allow competitors to move ahead. In my interview with Mark Coeckelbergh, we consider whether genuine international cooperation is possible under these conditions—and whether the language of AI safety can itself become part of geopolitical competition. A credible global framework must address shared risks without becoming an instrument through which technologically dominant countries preserve their advantage. #THEBRIEF #MayaPlentz #MarkCoeckelbergh #ArtificialIntelligence #Geopolitics #China #UnitedStates #AIGovernance #InternationalRelations #TechnologyPolicy AI may become an indispensable diplomatic instrument. But the more capable the technology becomes, the more important human judgment may prove to be. What remains uniquely human in diplomacy? Artificial intelligence can classify information, connect evidence, draft documents and simulate possible scenarios. What it cannot readily reproduce is the lived understanding behind human judgment. Drawing on Henri Bergson, Oxford Professor Corneliu Bjola distinguishes analytical intelligence from intuition: the ability to apprehend situations as dynamic realities rather than fixed collections of data. For diplomats, this includes reading a room, understanding silence, recognizing cultural signals and knowing when a relationship is changing before that change can be measured. AI may become an indispensable diplomatic instrument. But the more capable the technology becomes, the more important human judgment may prove to be. Listen to my interview for THE BRIEF: #THEBRIEF #MayaPlentz #CorneliuBjola #HenriBergson #ArtificialIntelligence #Diplomacy #Statecraft #HumanJudgment #OxfordUniversity #FutureOfDiplomacy This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

    Weekend Edition: US Constitutional History Course | Listen to my interview with Harvard Professor Thomas E. Patterson

  6. Sep 18

    Who Should Decide How Fast AI Moves?

    THE BRIEF is the must read daily newsletter for #diplomats and #tech leaders. DM for paid partnerships. #Tech #Policy #Culture Who Decides What Responsible AI Development Is? Dr. Mark Coeckelbergh, University of Vienna, on the AI Slowdown The leaders of the world’s most powerful artificial-intelligence companies are beginning to acknowledge that frontier AI may be advancing faster than governments and societies can safely absorb. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has called for the industry to slow the development of increasingly capable systems while introducing independent evaluations, common safety standards and greater international coordination. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has described the transition towards superintelligence as a “gentle singularity”—a process he argues could be momentous without necessarily appearing sudden. But can the companies driving the AI race also be trusted to determine its speed and safety rules? In this interview for THE BRIEF, I speak with Mark Coeckelbergh, Professor of Philosophy of Media and Technology at the University of Vienna and one of Europe’s leading thinkers on AI ethics, democracy and the politics of technology. We examine whether industry calls for restraint represent genuine responsibility or an attempt to shape regulation on favourable terms. We also consider who could enforce international safety standards, how governments can prevent regulatory capture and whether reassuring narratives about a “gentle” transition obscure the consequences for workers, democratic institutions and countries with little influence over AI development. The debate is also geopolitical. Washington and Beijing remain locked in technological, commercial and military competition. Export controls and national-security concerns continue to reward acceleration, even as industry leaders call for cooperation and restraint. From a philosophical perspective, what should ultimately determine the pace of AI development: technical safety benchmarks, democratic consent, measurable social benefits—or the capacity of institutions and communities to absorb its consequences? Dr. Mark Coeckelbergh is a Professor of Philosophy of Media and Technology, Department of Philosophy, University of Vienna, and serves as Circle U Chair for Artificial Intelligence. He also holds the ERA Chair at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences, where he leads the Center of Environmental and Technology Ethics. He is a member of the United Nation’s Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. Previously he held academic and leadership roles across Europe and beyond, including Vice Dean in Vienna, Managing Director of the 3TU.Centre for Ethics and Technology, and President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology. Coeckelbergh is the author of numerous influential publications (H index 71) including AI Ethics, Introduction to Philosophy of Technology, The Political Philosophy of AI, Why AI Undermines Democracy and What To Do About It, and Artificial Religion. His recent books are translated in many languages. He regularly advises policymakers and international organizations, including the European Commission (High-Level Expert Group on AI), the Austrian UNESCO Commission, the Austrian Council on Robotics and AI, and the Belgian Federal Advisory Committee on Data and AI. A longer bio can be found here. Research Areas Philosophy of technology, including philosophy of robotics, automation and artificial intelligence; Ethics: virtue ethics, ethics of technology, ethics of robotics, ethics of information technology, computer ethics, health care ethics, environmental ethics, animal ethics, etc.; Moral philosophy; Epistemology #THEBRIEF #MayaPlentz #MarkCoeckelbergh #ArtificialIntelligence #AIGovernance #AIEthics #Democracy #TechnologyPolicy #FrontierAI #FutureOfAI AI can strengthen diplomatic listening—but it can also accelerate manipulation, fragmentation and influence operations. Where should diplomats draw the line? On AI and Reality Can artificial intelligence understand reality—or does it merely organize representations of it? In my interview with Dr. Corneliu Bjola of the University of Oxford, we explore what the French philosopher Henri Bergson can teach us about AI, intelligence and diplomatic judgment. Bergson distinguished analytical intelligence—the capacity to divide, classify and connect information—from intuition, through which human beings encounter reality as something dynamic and continuously unfolding. This distinction matters for diplomacy. AI can process extraordinary quantities of information, identify patterns and support strategic analysis. But diplomacy also depends on empathy, timing, cultural understanding, ambiguity and the ability to recognize changes that cannot easily be reduced to data. #THEBRIEF #MayaPlentz #CorneliuBjola #ArtificialIntelligence #AIDiplomacy #DigitalDiplomacy #HenriBergson #OxfordUniversity #Statecraft #InternationalRelations #THEBRIEF #MayaPlentz #AI #Diplomacy #Oxford #Disinformation #Statecraft #AIGovernance #Geopolitics #DigitalDiplomacy This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

  7. Sep 18

    Oxford University Professor on How Diplomats Are Adopting AI and the Future of Statecraft

    Dr. Corneliu Bjola on the Future of Statecraft Interview by Maya Plentz | 16 September 2026 Support THE BRIEF. Become a paid subscriber. How Diplomats Are Adopting AI Artificial intelligence is part of the daily work of foreign ministries, but its major impact may not be the automation of diplomatic work. It may be the transformation of the environment in which diplomacy itself is practiced. In my interview with Dr. Corneliu Bjola, Professor of Digital Diplomacy at the University of Oxford and head of the Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group, we discussed AI as a tool, and as a medium, and the wider geopolitical environment where these changes in digital diplomacy are happening. “A lot of the discussion is about AI as a tool. But behind this tool there is also a medium—and there is the bigger picture of AI as an environment.” At the level of tools, diplomats already use generative AI for translation, summarization, audience analysis, pattern detection and content production. As a medium, however, AI begins to shape how officials perceive information, formulate messages and engage increasingly segmented publics. At the environmental level, the issue expands beyond software to the infrastructure that makes AI possible: semiconductors, critical raw materials, energy, water and data centres. Listening before broadcasting Much of the excitement around AI-powered public diplomacy has centred on personalization. Foreign ministries can tailor messages to specific audiences and communicate at far greater speed and scale. Bjola argues that the more valuable capability may be the reverse: listening. AI can help ministries monitor how issues are developing across languages and platforms, identify emerging concerns and distinguish meaningful signals from the flood of online noise. But the system cannot eliminate the need for diplomatic experience. Officials must interrogate where information comes from, how a conclusion was reached and what alternative explanations may fit the evidence. The danger is automation bias: inexperienced users can become impressed by fluent outputs and follow them uncritically. Bjola therefore sees continuous training as essential. The tools used in 2026 are already substantially different from those launched in 2022, and diplomatic education cannot treat AI literacy as a one-off course. AI is lowering the cost of influence operations The same systems that can strengthen diplomatic analysis can also make manipulation cheaper. Influence campaigns that once required sizeable teams can increasingly be run by a few people—or potentially one operator working with multiple agents. This changes the economics of disinformation and cyber-enabled influence. A couple of people—one person even—can engage in influence operations on a large scale, using agents. Sometimes for good, sometimes for evil. For foreign ministries, the challenge is to counter a handful of organized adversaries. They may face hundreds or thousands of state, commercial and individual actors operating at machine speed. Institutions built around slow procedures, annual budgets and hierarchical approvals risk responding with what Bjola called “one hand behind your back.” Diplomacy and the imponderables To explain what machines cannot resolve, Bjola drew on the findings of the book by Peter C. Grace, The Intelligence Intellectuals: Social Scientists and the Making of the CIA, which explores how elite academics—most notably Yale historian Sherman Kent—transformed reactive gut instinct into systematic, predictive strategic intelligence, one of the architects of modern intelligence analysis. “Imponderables” are factors that resist reliable measurement: political intentions, surprise, adaptation and chance. More data can reduce some uncertainty, but never all of it. This is where Bjola brings in the French philosopher Henri Bergson’s distinction between intelligence and intuition. Analytical intelligence classifies and connects evidence; intuition helps people perceive a dynamic reality while it is still unfolding. In a volatile crisis, diplomats need both. Teaching statecraft on shifting ground Bjola has introduced an Oxford course on diplomacy and emerging technologies that covers AI, virtual reality, quantum technologies and synthetic biology. His curriculum separates three speeds of change. Tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Mistral and newer agents change fastest. Capabilities—translation, segmentation, pattern recognition and crisis analysis—change more slowly. Strategic problems such as persuasion, deception, signalling, ambiguity and escalation are the most enduring. That structure allows students to examine new systems without mistaking each product release for a new theory of international relations. It also explains why Bjola draws on philosophy, psychology, anthropology, mathematics and literature. Henri Bergson illuminates intuition; Hannah Arendt raises questions about bureaucracy and dehumanization; Ernst Cassirer helps explain how AI models become symbolic filters through which reality and national images are understood. The future diplomatic workforce The diplomat of the AI era still needs expertise in trade, international law, security, climate or development. But domain expertise must now be combined with technical literacy, source criticism and the ability to work with—and challenge—AI systems. Foreign ministries will need people who understand both policy and the digital environment in which policy is negotiated. Bjola’s message is neither utopian nor alarmist. AI can improve diplomatic listening, intelligence and decision-making. It can also intensify manipulation, fragment the information environment and concentrate power in the companies and states that control the technology stack. The decisive variable is whether diplomatic institutions adapt quickly enough while preserving the human capacity for judgement. Listen or read my interview with Dr. Bjola. Subscribe to our newsletter THE BRIEF, to our YouTube channel, Apple and Spotify Podcasts and leave a review. We would love to hear from you. Transcript The following transcript has been slightly edited for clarity. Corneliu Bjola 00:00 Thanks you for inviting me again to the brief, I’m more than happy to discuss with you about new developments in the field, as you suggested. Maya Plentz 00:10 There’s so much happening, in terms of AI, I think when we spoke last with it was before the launch of ChatGPT that made this huge change in terms of how people are using these technologies in diplomacy, and how diplomats are adopting it and, and so on. And I’ve seen that you have been very, of course, following this very closely. Didn’t miss a beat in a sense, because you’ve been always looking into it and writing papers and analyzing and examining all these issues. Your work highlights how the grammar of digital space changes international statecraft. As public diplomacy shifts from basic social media broadcasting to a hyper personalized AI driven engagement, what do you see as the most significant operational gain for foreign ministries trying to project soft power today, and what are the pitfalls? Corneliu Bjola 01:14 Things are moving very fast. That creates a challenge for those both who try to use these tools in various diplomatic areas, but also for those who study how people use AI in the new environment. Starting with the first question you asked about the challenges. When I follow what is happening in terms of this fast acceleration of this digital tools and also the proliferation is actually fragmentation of the AI digital field. I find it quite interesting to go back to some political theories that one of them which I found it particularly inspiring for this moment. It’s a French philosopher, Henri Bergson. And I’m going to explain very briefly why do I think it’s quite relevant in this context to make sense of what is happening. Bergson received the Nobel Prize in 1927 for literature. It’s important because he makes an interesting distinction between intelligence and intuition. With intelligence is what we do all the time. We try to classify things. We try to make connections, try to look at reality and make sense of what is happening. And I think intelligence is quite important in this case. We develop analytical categories for what we see. We try to make a connection between these analytical categories. We try to see how they can be optimized for various functions. But what Bergson insisted is that reality is not static. And we see that happening, especially with the AI in the past two years, three years, quite well. So reality is dynamic, it’s becoming, it’s evolving. So he has this interesting concept, the French concept, duration, that you have to look at how things unfold in particular sequences of time. And I think this duration is interesting because this is where intuition kicks in. It’s trying to understand a little bit, you know, how this process unfolds before our eyes. So intelligence is the analytical part, but then there is this kind of intuitive sense of what we see before we can apply for analytical categories. Intelligence, in many cases, requires confirmation, requires validation, requires empirical evidence. And that takes a little bit of time to make sense, right? When you talk about GPT and agents, to what extent are we going, as OpenAI announced last week, into the age of AGI. Are we there yet? Do we have evidence? So what, on the other hand, if we apply this Bergsonian model, can we have an intuition, whether this is indeed, you know, the right process? So I think this is something that I found particularly interesting to follow. What is intelligence? What is intuition in the way in which we try to understand what is happening? Now, going back to the pitfalls that you mentioned. I think what we see nowadays, again, maybe a little bit of intelligence, maybe a little bit of

    Oxford University Professor on How Diplomats Are Adopting AI and the Future of Statecraft

  8. Jun 1

    Vaticano: A Questão Moral da IA | Brasil: Entrevista com Embaixador Eugenio Vargas Garcia Sobre Soberania de Dados na Era da IA

    SOBRE O THE BRIEF O THE BRIEF foi criado para tornar o multilateralismo, a diplomacia, as políticas de tecnologia e a governança global mais fáceis de acompanhar — com contexto, entrevistas e análises feitas com as pessoas que estão moldando essa agenda. As nossas entrevistas destacam diplomatas, funcionários das Nações Unidas, servidores internacionais, economistas, líderes em tecnologia, cientistas, figuras culturais e especialistas em políticas públicas que atuam em Genebra, Nova York, Bruxelas e além. Se você está nos lendo pela primeira vez, comece aqui: Assista às entrevistas e vídeos do THE BRIEF no YouTube:https://youtube.com/@The_Policy_Brief/videos Explore todo o arquivo do Substack:https://theunbrief.substack.com/archive Ouça os episódios do podcast THE BRIEF no Substack:https://theunbrief.substack.com/podcast Entre as publicações recentes e de arquivo estão coberturas sobre a escolha do novo Secretário-Geral da ONU, governança da inteligência artificial, cibersegurança, crises humanitárias, clima, comércio, diplomacia, diplomacia cultural e entrevistas com representantes do sistema ONU, OMC, UIT, UNICEF, Paris Peace Forum, GESDA, além de líderes globais da diplomacia, negócios, ciência e artes. O THE BRIEF é independente, baseado em Genebra, e focado nas questões que moldam a cooperação internacional em um momento em que o sistema multilateral enfrenta crescente pressão. Assine, assista, ouça e compartilhe com colegas que acompanham diplomacia, relações internacionais, Nações Unidas, políticas de tecnologia e governança global. #THEBRIEF #Diplomacia #Multilateralismo #GovernançaGlobal #PolíticaTecnológica #GovernançaDaIA #Genebra #PolíticaExterna #RelaçõesInternacionais Vaticano: IA Deve Servir Para o Desenvolvimento Econômico Global e Incluir as Pessoas Mais Vulneráveis A encíclica Magnifica Humanitas, a primeira do Papa Leão XIV, coloca a questão do futuro da humanidade, a justiça social, e o avanço econômico dos países em desenvolvimento na era da inteligência artificial. O documento parte da ideia de que a humanidade está diante de uma escolha moral: construir uma nova “torre de Babel”, marcada por poder, uniformização, lucro e dominação tecnológica, ou reconstruir uma “Jerusalém” simbólica, baseada em responsabilidade comum, dignidade humana, justiça e comunhão. A tese principal é que a tecnologia não é neutra. Ela carrega os interesses de quem a concebe, financia, regula e utiliza. O documento afirma que a IA deve ser julgada à luz da dignidade humana, do bem comum, da justiça social, da subsidiariedade e da solidariedade. A encíclica critica a concentração de infraestrutura digital, dados, plataformas e capacidade computacional nas mãos de poucos atores privados globais, porque isso pode gerar novas formas de dependência, exclusão, manipulação e desigualdade. Esta encíclica trata da IA como transformação histórica comparável à questão de política industrial e às tensões entre capital e trabalho levantadas pelo Papa Leo XIII na sua encíclica Rerum Novarum, publicada em maio de 1891. Participação da Anthropic Christopher Olah, cofundador da Anthropic e chefe de pesquisa em interpretabilidade de IA, foi um dos palestrantes oficiais na apresentação da encíclica, ao lado de cardeais, teólogos e acadêmicos. Vatican Press A função pública de Olah foi a de interlocutor técnico e moralmente significativa: um representante de uma empresa líder em IA que reconheceu, diante do Vaticano, que os laboratórios de fronteira operam sob pressões comerciais, geopolíticas e pessoais que podem entrar em conflito com o bem comum. Olah destacou três desafios: a responsabilidade diante dos pobres e da desigualdade global; a necessidade de repensar o florescimento humano e familiar num mundo mediado por IA; e o discernimento ético dos próprios criadores de modelos de IA. EWTN Vatican A importância da Anthropic, portanto, é simbólica e estratégica. O Vaticano não convidou apenas reguladores ou teólogos; colocou no centro do lançamento um ator de dentro da indústria de IA. Isso reforça a mensagem da encíclica: a governança da IA não pode ser deixada apenas aos laboratórios, aos mercados ou aos Estados, mas precisa envolver comunidades religiosas, sociedade civil, governos, pesquisadores, educadores e pessoas afetadas pela tecnologia. Oficialmente, a encíclica foi assinada em 15 de maio de 2026, no 135º aniversário da promulgação de Rerum Novarum, do Papa Leo XIII em 15 de maio de 1891, e apresentada em 25 de maio de 2026, na Aula do Sínodo, na presença do Papa Leo XIV. Leão XIV afirmou que Magnifica Humanitas “nasceu da escuta”: escuta de cientistas e engenheiros, líderes políticos, servidores públicos, pais, professores, vítimas de exclusão algorítmica e preocupações com armas autônomas. Essa explicação oficial enquadra o processo de criação como um exercício de escuta pastoral, teológica e social, não como um relatório técnico. Qual é a função de uma encíclica Uma encíclica é uma carta papal de alto peso doutrinal e pastoral. Não é um simples artigo de opinião, nem um regulamento técnico. A sua função é orientar a Igreja — e “todas as pessoas de boa vontade” — sobre temas morais, espirituais, sociais e políticos relevantes para uma época. No caso de Magnifica Humanitas, a função é inserir a IA dentro da tradição da doutrina de justiça social da Igreja. O próprio documento afirma que não pretende oferecer um tratado técnico sobre IA, mas inserir critérios essenciais de discernimento moral e social no discurso global. Em linguagem prática: a encíclica não diz qual algoritmo usar, que lei específica aprovar ou qual arquitetura técnica adotar. Ela oferece uma moldura normativa: dignidade humana, responsabilidade, transparência, controle público, justiça social, paz, proteção dos vulneráveis e oposição à lógica de dominação tecnológica. Houve antes uma encíclica focada em tecnologia? Não exatamente neste formato. Houveram encíclicas sociais anteriores que trataram de transformações técnicas, econômicas e industriais, mas Magnifica Humanitas parece ser a primeira encíclica papal dedicada de forma sistemática à inteligência artificial. O antecedente mais importante é Rerum Novarum de Leão XIII, de 1891, que respondeu à questão operária e à transformação industrial. Laudato si’, de Francisco, também criticou o “paradigma tecnocrático” e abordou ciência, tecnologia e ecologia, mas não era uma encíclica especificamente sobre IA. A própria Magnifica Humanitas cita documentos anteriores recentes sobre IA, incluindo a nota Antiqua et nova de 2025, mensagens de Francisco sobre IA e comunicações, e discursos sobre IA no G7, mas esses não eram encíclicas centradas exclusivamente no tema. A força política do documento está em deslocar a discussão sobre IA de um debate de inovação para um debate de poder. A encíclica não se limita a perguntar se a IA será eficiente, produtiva ou competitiva. Ela pergunta: quem controla essa tecnologia, quem lucra com ela, quem fica vulnerável, quem é excluído e que tipo de humanidade está sendo construída. A presença de Christopher Olah, da Anthropic, torna o lançamento mais relevante porque dá ao texto uma ponte direta com a indústria de IA de fronteira. Mas também cria tensão: a encíclica critica justamente o poder concentrado de atores privados transnacionais, enquanto convida um líder de uma dessas empresas para validar a necessidade de discernimento externo. Essa tensão é provavelmente deliberada. O Vaticano está dizendo que a IA não pode ser governada sem os seus criadores, mas tampouco pode ser governada apenas por eles. Assine a THE BRIEF Para saber mais: Vaticano: Papa Leão XIV provoca debate público sobre inteligência artificial Embora outros Papas já tenham feito referências ao impacto da tecnologia sobre a humanidade, esta é a primeira encíclica que aborda a inteligência artificial de forma direta e sistemática. Alguns dos principais precedentes são: João Paulo II — Redemptor Hominis, 1979.João Paulo II perguntou explicitamente se o progresso tecnológ… This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit theunbrief.substack.com/subscribe

See All (25)

About

This is *the* podcast for diplomats, tech executives, investors, UN and EU officials that are changing the world through dialogue and are using emerging technologies for good. theunbrief.substack.com

Information