AI Hype Meets Geopolitics at World Economic Forum

Dubai's AI Summit: A Masterclass in Performative Urgency

Another year, another gathering of the global elite. The World Economic Forum descended upon opulent Dubai for "pressing world issues." They likely debated grand solutions over tiny, fancy canapés, served with impeccable, silent efficiency, of course.

This month’s main event was the Annual Meetings of the Global Future Councils and Cybersecurity 2025 (AMGFCC). It loudly promised to tackle AI's looming geopolitical chaos and our widespread digital vulnerabilities. Honestly, it's always big claims with often minimal actual expectations, let’s be brutally real about it.

The summit starkly highlighted a massive, awkward, and continuously growing gap. AI speeds ahead while our collective ability to manage it genuinely lags far behind, seemingly stuck in old ways. This entire spectacle feels less like "fast-track action" and more a meticulously staged "panic button fashion show," honestly.

When "Experts" Talk, Do Solutions Actually Emerge?

At the very core of this entire shindig is the GFC Network. They self-proclaim it as a "global multistakeholder and interdisciplinary knowledge network." We, however, undeniably see a potential echo chamber, just with a much fancier, self-important official name and bigger budgets.

Their stated purpose is generating supposedly profound insights on "cutting-edge issues." They explore both established and emerging systems impacting global, regional, and specific industry challenges. It all sounds super important, but what does it actually *do* in practice, besides generate more meetings?

Experts from 93 different nations were supposedly involved. Business leaders, esteemed academics, and various public figures all gathered at the grand table, making it look good. But does this impressive, diverse representation guarantee truly fresh, groundbreaking insights? Or just polished, pre-approved consensus for the masses?

The councils cover literally everything imaginable: from cybersecurity and digital infrastructure to artificial general intelligence (AGI) and "information integrity." This wildly broad scope feels incredibly spread thin, raising many legitimate red flags about actual focus. Will they delve truly deep into complex problems, or simply scratch the surface of these huge, critical topics before moving on?

Cybersecurity 2025: More Talk, Fewer Firewalls

A huge, significant chunk of the AMGFCC focused intently on addressing systemic cybersecurity issues. Over 150 "global cyber leaders" were reportedly in attendance, flying in from everywhere important. Their collective goal: building a "shared understanding" and fostering "collaboration" for digital resilience across the board.

They discussed how various councils adapt their important work to "Intelligent Age" technologies. This crucial information then informs upcoming, influential reports like the Global Risks Report 2026. Because high-profile, annual reports always magically fix everything in the actual real world, right?

Traditional cybersecurity often completely neglects the crucial human element, which is a major, recurring flaw. They acknowledge this as a much-needed, progressive discussion point, which is fine, I guess. Yet, one has to genuinely wonder if these very "experts" remember basic password hygiene themselves, for their own critical accounts.

The "Intelligent Age" narrative heavily emphasizes adapting to new paradigms. Council mandates range broadly from governance and security to sustainability and future growth. But are we truly promoting profound intelligence, or just more unsustainable "innovation" and relentless, unchecked "development"?

The "Intelligent Age": Just Another Buzzword Bingo?

This year’s meeting leaned incredibly heavily into "adapting to the Intelligent Age," which sounds very futuristic. Discussions were set to explore the intersection of innovation and critical societal impact. Is it about real, tangible intelligence, or just another set of tired tech-bro buzzwords being thrown around?

They even livestreamed 19 public sessions across all platforms for maximum, performative reach to the public. #AMGFCC25 was probably trending for a bit, creating plenty of online buzz. But was it genuine, meaningful dialogue, or just carefully curated PR for the WEF's broader, ambiguous agenda?

Participants gathered to "share insights," "explore emerging trends," and "showcase progress." They explicitly aimed to "fast-track action" for "resilient, inclusive, and sustainable societies." This ultimately needs less performative PR and much more actual, demonstrable substance, not just good optics.

Beyond the Hashtags: What Actually Changes?

The AMGFCC had a crucial, albeit likely performative, opportunity to address AI and growing cyber challenges. But a healthy dose of skepticism is absolutely required here, always, from everyone. Tech solutions alone cannot genuinely save us from these complex, systemic issues.

Human agency and ethical considerations remain absolutely key, not just fleeting online buzz or trending topics. Trending hashtags and social media visibility do not equal real, tangible progress or systemic, lasting change. Our future demands significantly more than just "fast-tracked actions."

AI is Mid, and So Are Our Solutions (For Now)

Ultimately, it’s about thoughtful reflection, genuine commitment, and long-term, impactful action. We must build a truly equitable and sustainable world for everyone, not just the privileged few. Not just for those enjoying Dubai's impressive, glittering skyline views from their exclusive summits.

Until then, these high-profile summits remain mostly performative vibes and good optics for the cameras. The real, on-the-ground impact on AI's messy reality is still hazy, bordering on nonexistent. AI is definitely still mid, and the proposed "solutions" might just be too.