This session reflected a growing realization of the magnitude of the challenges posed by artificial intelligence to the future of international peace and security. With the expansion of algorithms into vital areas such as surveillance, intelligence analysis, military and political decision-making, the question arises as to whether machines can be relied upon to make fateful decisions regarding human lives.
The essence of the debate revolves around the ability of algorithms to process huge amounts of data at a speed that surpasses the human mind, but at the same time they remain imprisoned by the information and criteria fed to them. If these data are biased or incomplete, the resulting decisions will in turn be loaded with bias or prone to error. This raises the issue of accountability. Who bears responsibility when an algorithm leads to disastrous results: the programmer, the state that adopts it, or the international system that allowed its uncontrolled spread.
In addition, some AI models operate as black boxes whose internal logic is difficult to interpret, which weakens transparency and makes oversight almost impossible in the context of international security, where any error may lead to armed conflict or the targeting of civilians. These loopholes become very dangerous, hence the emphasis in the session's interventions on the need for humans to remain present in the decision circle and not just witness to the recommendations of a closed mechanism.
On the other hand, the practical value of AI cannot be denied, as it has an exceptional ability to analyze huge amounts of data that humans may not be able to deal with with the required speed and accuracy, and from this perspective, AI becomes an auxiliary tool and a tributary to the human decision, provided that the latter remains the final judge.
In the face of this reality, it seems that the best position is neither to reject algorithms completely nor to hand them over the reins of decision-making, but to seek a compromise formula that ensures their integration within a clear regulatory, legal and ethical system, as past experiences show that technical progress, if left uncontrolled, may turn into a direct threat, while subjecting it to rational human supervision can turn it into an element of support to promote peace and security.
In my view, the concern expressed by the Security Council is legitimate and necessary. Human beings alone have the ability to balance between digital data and human values, between the calculations of power and the requirements of justice, and between strategic interest and human dignity. History has proven that decisive decisions are not measured by numbers alone, but by ethical standards that preserve the meaning of humanity itself. Allowing algorithms to shape the future threatens that humans will lose their authority over their destiny, but employing them as a tool under responsible human supervision can open wide horizons to harness technology in the service of peace.
comments