Disarming Weapons Was Easy. Disarming AI Wasn't.

The committee of DISEC gathered to debate the risks of dual-use technology, but by the end of the session, one thing became painfully clear: the most dangerous technology in the room wasn't AI- it was delegates who forgot to proofread what AI wrote for them.

From Syria to Jordan and Finland, the discussion bounced between international security and civilian gun ownership, with enough cross-talk to qualify as its own moderated caucus. Delegates called out to one another so often that the Chair deserved hazard pay just for keeping the room in order.

The Delegate of Iraq took the floor with a determined speech, arguing that Iraq seeks defensive missile systems to protect its people rather than contribute to missile proliferation. The speech emphasized cooperation with the United Nations and regional security while insisting Iraq had no interest in starting another conflict. It was long, ambitious, and packed with strategic terminology. The committee's response? Not a single Point of Information. Whether that was out of respect or collective confusion remains classified.

Russia followed by firmly condemning the transfer of arms and dual-use technology to terrorist organisations while defending diplomacy with Iran and the importance of international agreements over endless accusations. It was one of the clearer policy positions of the session, although by then nearly every speech sounded suspiciously like it came from the same prompt.

The irony was impossible to ignore. A committee warning about the misuse of artificial intelligence spent the morning demonstrating exactly that.

Pratt Visant,

Politico Europe