On May 12 (Monday), leaders from around the globe gathered at the United Nations in New York to renew talks on regulating AI-powered autonomous weapons, killer robots, as experts warn the window is closing to establish safeguards around this rapidly advancing and deadly technology.
Autonomous and artificial intelligence-assisted weapons systems are already playing a greater role in conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza. And rising defence spending worldwide promises to provide a further boost for burgeoning AI-assisted military technology.
However, progress towards establishing global rules governing their development and use has not kept pace with their development, and internationally binding standards remain virtually non-existent.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has set a 2026 deadline for states to establish clear rules on AI weapon use, but human rights groups warn that consensus among governments is lacking.
The head of arms control at Austria’s foreign minister, Alexander Kmentt, insists that this must change quickly.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
“Time is really running out to put in some guardrails so that the nightmare scenarios that some of the most noted experts are warning of don’t come to pass,” he told Reuters.
The May 12 meeting was the first of its kind, focused entirely on autonomous weapons. The goal was to pressure resistant military powers to support regulations, despite their concerns that rules might reduce the technology’s effectiveness on the battlefield.
Campaign groups hope the meeting will push states to agree on a legal instrument.
They view it as a crucial litmus test on whether countries are able to bridge divisions ahead of the next round of talks in September.
“This issue needs clarification through a legally binding treaty. The technology is moving so fast,” said Patrick Wilcken, Amnesty International’s Researcher on Military, Security and Policing.
“The idea that you wouldn’t want to rule out the delegation of life or death decisions … to a machine seems extraordinary.”
READ MORE:
- Scientists Built a Toy Model of a Black Hole Bomb, And It Actually Worked
- Obsolete Tech Behind Tens of Thousands of Air Traffic Control Failures Each Year, Insiders Say
An arms race
The New York talks come after 164 states supported a 2023 U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for the international community to urgently address the risks posed by autonomous weapons.
While many countries back a binding global framework, the United States, Russia, China and India prefer national guidelines or existing international laws, according to Amnesty.
“We have not been convinced that existing law is insufficient,” a U.S. Pentagon spokesperson told Reuters, adding that autonomous weapons might actually pose less risk to civilians than conventional weapons.
The governments of India, Russia, and China did not respond to requests for comment.
In the absence of regulation, autonomous systems are proliferating.
Weapons experts at the Future of Life Institute think tank have tracked the deployment of roughly 200 autonomous weapon systems across Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa.
Russian forces, for example, have deployed some 3,000 Veter kamikaze drones – capable of autonomously detecting and engaging targets – to Ukraine, according to its data.
Ukraine has, meanwhile, used semi-autonomous drones in the conflict. The Ukrainian government declined to comment.
Israel has used AI-systems to identify targets in Gaza. Its mission in Geneva said it supported multilateral discussions and uses data technologies in full accordance with international law.
Human Rights Watch, however, said crucial questions of accountability under international law remain unresolved and warned in a report last month that unregulated autonomous weapons present a range of threats to human rights and could provoke an arms race if unchecked.
And campaigners like Laura Nolan of Stop Killer Robots worry there is currently little to ensure defence firms will develop AI-driven weapons responsibly.
“We do not generally trust industries to self-regulate … There is no reason why defence or technology companies should be more worthy of trust,” she said.
Reuters contributed to this report
