Scaling Future Peacemaking through AI-Powered Public Deliberation

The peacemaking landscape is shifting with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). The “small-room,” elite-driven processes of the past are ill-equipped for the digital-age complexities of a media sphere rife with false and deceptive information. To remain effective, peacemaking practice must confront new AI-driven realities and evolve from a closed-door art into a transparent, data-informed science of deliberation and public sensemaking.

Networked communities and technologies are playing significant roles in conflicts shaping information environments and deepening divisions. For example, AI fakes in the U.S. and Israel war on Iran can cause people to react emotionally and on the basis of inaccurate information. This might push governments to act based on fake evidence. AI fakes can also copy or oppose official statements, making officials respond to prove the fake content—like fake videos of officials—wrong (Thompson and Cardia 2026).

The surge of disjointed information on partisan news outlets and social media, rife with AI-generated fabrications and misinformation, results in “cognitive overload.” Social media algorithms, designed to maximize attention, amplify extreme voices while muting the moderate majority. In an age of digital surveillance and “cancel culture,” individuals often fear that genuine engagement might lead to backlash or danger. Many find digital spaces unsafe, exposing them to harmful comments and attacks. This can immobilize public participation and erode trust in intermediaries (Schirch 2021).

Peacemaking in the AI age requires an ability to understand and engage widely across the information environment. Traditional peacemaking excels at depth but lacks the kind of breadth necessary to engage digital spaces (Schirch 2022). While conflict impacts millions, most peace processes only involve dozens of elite participants. Consequently, agreements often lack the broad social backing necessary for long-term sustainability.

To counter these digital threats and challenges, as well as the limitations of traditional peacemaking, some peacemakers are turning toward deliberative technologies. Public-minded engineers are designing digital platforms to support inclusive and constructive public reasoning. For example, the UN Innovation Unit used the deliberative platform Remesh in peace processes in Yemen, Libya, and Iraq (United Nations 2022). AI-enhanced deliberative tools allow peacemakers to engage tens of thousands of participants simultaneously, helping both the public and diplomats understand the diversity of public opinion (Masood Alavi et al. 2022; Wählisch and Kufus 2025).

The Digital Architecture of Peace: Prosocial Design Affordances

Digital deliberative tools are distinct from social media in important ways (Schirch 2026a). They utilize “prosocial design affordances” to shift away from toxic and polarizing discussions on social media, fostering collective sensemaking and problem-solving (Schirch 2026b).

First, deliberative platforms focus on one policy issue at a time. This is distinct from social media platforms that collapse all communication into a single, undifferentiated feed. Deliberative tech allows users to orient themselves cognitively and emotionally, reducing the friction that occurs when people rush from one toxic conversation to the next.

Second, on deliberative platforms, the focus is on the issues, not the identities of the participants. Most deliberative tools do not have a reply button. The reply button often facilitates personal attacks. By removing direct replies, this lowers the risk for “silent observers” to contribute. It ensures that disagreement remains focused on substance rather than status.

Third, standard emojis like “likes,” “hearts,” or “angry” on social media show how people feel about something. These emojis often highlight content that causes strong, often negative, emotions. In contrast to engagement-oriented social media, deliberative tools encourage listening at scale and use structured voting on ideas (Agree/Disagree/Pass). This approach views engagement as a group decision, helping platforms see patterns of agreement and mixed feelings, not just what is popular.

Fourth, while conventional algorithms amplify outrage to maximize time spent on a platform, some deliberative tools use bridging algorithms to identify and elevate ideas that receive support across ideological, geographic, or demographic divides. By rewarding bridge-building rather than conflict, these algorithms make common ground visible and compromise socially legitimate.

Fifth, deliberative tools counter the illusion of binary “us vs. them” attitudes in divided societies. AI-assisted analysis synthesizes thousands of open-ended responses, identifying patterns that would take facilitators days to produce. These tools can produce visual opinion maps by grouping similar ideas together, illustrating common ground and opinion diversity. This can show participants that most conflict issues involve three to seven thought clusters, not just two. This can minimize perception gaps that lead to toxic polarization.

Sixth, some deliberative tools help participants navigate the truth decay resulting from disinformation and build the shared reality necessary for peacemaking. Deliberative tools help participants with “fact-building” by organizing and grouping cited sources of information. Participants can produce logic trees that compare different points of view and different sources of evidence.

Finally, AI-enabled translation breaks down structural language barriers, allowing participants to contribute in their native tongues while others receive real-time translations. AI translation is constantly improving, although humans still need to check important or cultural terms. Participants are able to engage with others in their preferred language, which may also boost participation and clarity in a deliberation.

The Path Forward: Adaptation, Research, and Ethics

New deliberative tools are helpful, but they are not a perfect solution. They require strong human oversight and adaptation. Peacemakers need a hybrid mix of face-to-face trust-building and AI-enhanced deliberative tools to understand public opinions on a large scale. We need more research to learn with real communities how best to use these tools.

Further, we cannot ignore how the impact of AI on energy and water threatens wider ecosystems. We must use AI conservatively to limit these negative impacts. In addition, we must be careful of inherent biases in most AI systems. Deliberative tools must be designed in a way to protect data privacy and prevent surveillance. These tools should help everyone, not just those in power (Schirch 2025).

In our connected world, doing nothing is riskier than trying new things. We must begin to adapt to a world where AI is fueling and shaping conflicts. Peacebuilding organizations like Search for Common Ground and Build Up are already integrating deliberative technologies in their peace efforts. By confronting these new dynamics and advancing new deliberative tools, peacemakers can create peace that includes more people, is more accepted, and lasts longer. As we have learned over time, peace is made not just in small meetings but ultimately by the communities who will live with it.

Works Cited

Masood Alavi, Daanish, Martin Wählisch, Colin Irwin, and Andrew Konya. 2022. “Using Artificial Intelligence for Peacebuilding.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 17(2): 239–43. doi:10.1177/15423166221102757.

Schirch, Lisa. 2021. Social Media Impacts on Conflict and Democracy: The Techtonic Shift. Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Schirch, Lisa. 2022. “The Digital Space and Peace Processes.” Geneva: ICT4Peace Foundation & Fondation Hirondelle.

Schirch, Lisa. 2025. Blueprint for Prosocial Tech Design Governance. Tokyo: Toda Peace Institute.

Schirch, Lisa. 2026a. “A Taxonomy of Deliberative Technologies: A Landscape Analysis of the Tech Stack for Democracy.” Forthcoming.

Schirch, Lisa. 2026b. “Prosocial Design Affordances and Algorithms for Social Media.” in Perspectives on a Healthy Internet. TBD.

Thompson, Stuart A., and Alexander Cardia. 2026. “Cascade of A.I. Fakes about War with Iran Causes Chaos Online.” The New York Times, March 14.

United Nations. 2022. “Making People’s Voices Matter.” UN Web TV, June 27. 4 min., 20 sec. https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1v/k1vm6h4kve.

Wählisch, Martin, and Felix Kufus. 2025. “Leveraging AI in Peace Processes: A Framework for Digital Dialogues.” Data & Policy 7:e65. doi:10.1017/dap.2025.10031.