Stop Killer Robots UK is at the informal exchanges on artificial intelligence in the military domain meetings in Geneva between 15 – 17 June 2026. Below are highlights from the third day.
The PAX and Privacy International “When algorithms go to war (Tech giants, the arms industry and the weaponisation of AI)” fringe meeting at the UN in Geneva focused on the accountability of big tech in military AI and launch of new report.
Privacy International and Pax side event took place during the UN’s Informal Exchanges on Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain, a new diplomatic process examining the implications of AI-enabled military technologies and potential governance responses.
The panel featured:
- Frank Slijper, Arms Trade Project Lead PAX and co-author of the report.
- Ilia Siatitsa, Program Director and Senior Legal Officer at Privacy International and co-author of the report.
- Isabelle Jones, Head of Government Relations and Advocacy for Stop Killer Robots who moderated the discussion.
- Elke Schwarz, Expert in the ethics and politics of new Military technologies and Professor of Political Theory at Queen Mary University of London.
The newly launched report ‘When Algorithms go to War’ argues that the boundaries between civilian technologies, commercial data ecosystems and military applications have become increasingly blurred. It defines this process as the “militarisation of tech” and examines how data-intensive technologies originally developed for civilian purposes are increasingly being adapted for military use.
The report adopts a “technology stack” approach, identifying three interconnected layers:
- Hardware and infrastructure (chips, cloud services, data centres).
- Foundational software and AI models.
- Military applications and decision-support systems.
To illustrate this ecosystem, the report examines four categories of companies:
- Hardware producers including AMD, Cisco, IBM and Nvidia.
- Major technology firms including Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle and SpaceX.
- Defence technology “neo-primes” such as Anduril and Palantir.
- Traditional arms manufacturers including BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX.
According to the report, military AI should not be viewed solely through the lens of autonomous weapons. Rather, it depends on an extensive ecosystem of commercial infrastructure, cloud services, data pipelines and AI capabilities that increasingly connect civilian and military sectors.
Key Discussion Themes
Military AI as a Data Problem
Ilia Siatitsa emphasised that military AI should be understood fundamentally as a data governance challenge.
She noted that many technologies now supporting military operations were originally developed for civilian markets, including sensors, navigation tools, cloud services and AI models. Their dual-use nature means that technologies designed for commercial purposes can be repurposed for military applications with relatively few barriers.
Particular concern was raised about the role of data in modern warfare. Data is no longer simply used as intelligence; it increasingly forms part of operational systems themselves. Speakers highlighted the growing use of commercial datasets, data brokers and large-scale data infrastructures in military contexts.
Siatitsa argued that accountability efforts should focus on three priorities:
- Treat military AI as a data governance issue rather than only a weapons issue.
- Scrutinise what types of data enter military AI systems and how personal data is used.
- Apply existing data protection and accountability frameworks more rigorously to technology companies, recognising that industry is an active participant in military AI ecosystems rather than a passive supplier.
The discussion reflected broader concerns raised in the report regarding the role of data-intensive technologies in military decision-making and targeting processes.
The Growing Influence of Big Tech
Frank Slijper focused on the concentration of power within the technology sector and the implications for military AI development.
Drawing on findings from the report, he noted that major technology corporations have become deeply embedded within military ecosystems through cloud services, software platforms, AI systems and partnerships with defence contractors. The report argues that companies such as Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft have become heavily invested in military applications, including dedicated military cloud solutions and partnerships supporting weapons integration.
Slijper also highlighted the increasing concentration of wealth and influence among technology executives. The report notes that the world’s wealthiest individuals are closely linked to major technology firms and argues that technology, political influence and military interests are becoming increasingly intertwined.
A recurring theme was the contrast between public commitments to ethical or responsible AI principles and the growing participation of technology companies in military programmes.
Venture Capital, Defence Start-Ups and New Military Actors
Elke Schwarz examined how new actors are reshaping military innovation.
She argued that the rise of venture-capital-backed defence technology firms introduces new incentives into military development. Military technologies are increasingly framed as investment opportunities, creating pressure for rapid deployment, scaling and growth.
Schwarz pointed to the emergence of a growing ecosystem of defence technology start-ups that operate between traditional defence contractors and major technology firms. These actors are changing procurement processes, introducing Silicon Valley business models into defence sectors and accelerating the adoption of AI-enabled military technologies.
The report similarly identifies firms such as Anduril and Palantir as highly influential actors that occupy a new space between the technology sector and traditional defence industry structures.
A key message from Schwarz was the need for policymakers, diplomats and civil society organisations to become more “AI industry literate” in order to understand how financial incentives, ownership structures and corporate strategies shape military AI development.
Implications for International Governance
Several speakers connected these developments to ongoing international discussions on autonomous weapons and AI governance.
The report highlights growing concerns that advances in AI-enabled targeting, decision-support systems and autonomous capabilities are outpacing existing regulatory frameworks. It warns that increasing automation may affect civilian protection, accountability and compliance with international humanitarian law.
The report also notes that concerns about autonomous weapons have evolved beyond traditional discussions of lethal autonomous weapon systems to include broader questions about AI-enabled decision support and algorithmic targeting.
Speakers repeatedly stressed that governance discussions should move beyond the narrow question of autonomous weapons and address the wider ecosystem of data, infrastructure, cloud services and corporate actors that make military AI possible.
Key Takeaways
The event highlighted several important trends:
- Military AI increasingly relies on commercial technologies and infrastructure rather than exclusively military-developed systems.
- Data has become a central component of modern warfare, creating new accountability and privacy concerns.
- Technology companies are playing an increasingly direct role in military ecosystems.
- Venture capital and defence technology start-ups are reshaping military procurement and innovation.
- Existing governance frameworks have not kept pace with the rapid integration of AI into military operations.
- Greater transparency, accountability and democratic oversight are needed across the military AI supply chain.
Conclusion
The discussion reinforced a central message of the newly launched report: contemporary military AI cannot be understood solely as a question of weapons systems or battlefield autonomy. Instead, it reflects a broader convergence between commercial technology sectors, data infrastructures, financial markets and military institutions.
As governments continue to invest heavily in AI-enabled military capabilities, the report and panel both argue that greater scrutiny is needed not only of autonomous weapons themselves, but of the companies, data flows, cloud infrastructures and investment models that increasingly underpin modern warfare. In this sense, the debate is no longer simply about whether algorithms will go to war, but about who builds them, who profits from them, and who remains accountable when they do.