India said that decisions regarding the use of force cannot be transferred to machines during informal exchanges in Geneva [1].
This position highlights the growing global tension between the rapid integration of artificial intelligence in defense systems and the ethical necessity of human accountability. As nations modernize their arsenals, the risk of autonomous systems making lethal errors without human intervention becomes a primary security concern.
Indian Ambassador Charanjeet Singh said during the discussions on June 15, 2024 [1]. He said that the integration of AI into military domains must not come at the cost of human agency. According to Singh, the preservation of human judgment is not merely a preference but a requirement for the ethical conduct of warfare [1].
Singh said, "Human judgement and oversight must be preserved throughout the AI lifecycle" [1]. This lifecycle includes everything from the initial design and programming of AI tools to their active deployment in the field. The ambassador said that the responsibility for taking a life must remain with a human operator to ensure legal and moral accountability [1].
The Geneva talks served as a forum for nations to discuss the risks associated with autonomous weapons systems. India's stance aligns with a broader international movement seeking to prevent the creation of "slaughterbots"—weapons capable of selecting and engaging targets without any human input [1].
While AI can provide critical data and speed up reaction times, India maintains that these tools should support, rather than replace, the decision-making process. The ambassador said that the final authority to employ force must stay under human control to prevent unintended escalations in conflict [1].
“Decisions on the use of force cannot be transferred to machines.”
India's insistence on human-in-the-loop systems reflects a strategic caution against the unpredictability of autonomous AI in high-stakes military environments. By advocating for human oversight at the UN, India is positioning itself as a proponent of international norms that prevent a fully autonomous arms race, emphasizing that technological speed must not override legal accountability.
