Sign In

[Editorial] Is South Korea truly interested in artificial intelligence on a national scale?

Haebom
The term of the 21st National Assembly has recently ended, and the 22nd National Assembly has begun. While watching a debate on the 21st National Assembly on a TV channel, I got curious after seeing a discussion about AI bills, so I looked into what kinds of AI bills there had been. There were as many as 12. Of course, with the end of the 21st Assembly’s term, these expired naturally, so the 22nd Assembly now faces the issue of having to address them all over again.
Bill Number
Bill Title
Date Proposed
Voting Result
Date of Vote
2123709
Artificial Intelligence Accountability and Regulation Bill
2023-08-08
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2120353
Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act
2023-02-28
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2118726
Bill on Promoting the AI Industry and Building Trust
2022-12-07
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2116986
AI Education Promotion Act
2022-08-24
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2113509
Bill on Algorithms and AI
2021-11-24
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2111573
AI Bill
2021-07-19
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2111261
Bill on Promoting AI and Building a System of Trust, etc.
2021-07-01
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2110148
AI Education Promotion Act
2021-05-17
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2104772
Basic Law on AI Technology
2020-10-29
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2104564
Special Act on Promoting AI Cluster Complexes
2020-10-19
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2103515
Bill on Promoting the AI Industry
2020-09-03
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
2101823
Bill on AI R&D, Industry Promotion, and Ethical Responsibility, etc.
2020-07-13
Discarded Due to End of Term
2024-05-29
Looking at these issues, first, there is the problem of 'discarded due to end of term,' where many bills are automatically thrown out because the proposer’s term ends. Also, bills that are pending in committees aren't being reviewed thoroughly, leading to 'review delays.' This lowers the effectiveness of the bills and makes timely regulation and support difficult.
Additionally, the low level of interest and priority given to AI by the political sphere is also an issue. Considering the far-reaching impact and social changes AI will bring, there is currently a lack of political will and support for these bills. This weakens the momentum needed to pass them and reduces the National Assembly’s ability to keep up with the fast-changing technology landscape.
인공지능에 대한 선언은 내가 할게 실무는 누가할래?
In terms of the content of the bills, improvements are needed as well. Most current bills are comprehensive and declarative, lacking concrete plans for implementation. Given the complexity and rapid advancement of technologies like AI, we need more detailed and flexible approaches to regulation. (Some bills divide artificial intelligence into categories like 'general AI,' 'superintelligent AI,' and 'high-risk AI,' but it just seems conceptual—they're only setting terminology rather than offering concrete criteria, so even as I read, I found it hard to know what their actual intentions were.)
To address these problems, efforts are needed on multiple fronts. First, there need to be institutional mechanisms to streamline bill reviews in the National Assembly and process them more quickly. This would help resolve delays in reviewing pending bills and ease the issue of discarding bills due to end of term.
It’s also important to raise AI awareness among politicians and prioritize related bills. If this is pursued along with a nationwide government AI strategy, it can create powerful synergies. If the government and National Assembly work together to proactively address AI’s development and its social impact, we’ll be able to speed up the overhaul of legal and institutional frameworks. Defining terminology is fine, but there seems to be a tendency to define terms before the environment, ecosystem, or relevant personnel are even in place. The standards for defining these terms also seem pretty vague.
Boosting the specificity and effectiveness of the bills themselves is crucial. Considering the unique aspects of AI technology, we need more detailed and adaptable regulatory approaches. That means soliciting input from a range of stakeholders—technical experts, industry, academia, civil society—and building consensus. I don’t think this should be done along party lines, but rather be bipartisan. Supposedly the first quarter after a new session of the Assembly is always the most intense... I hope... I’ve shared a recent example from the U.S., right?
🇺🇸
Active communication and collaboration between bill proposers and relevant agencies is also crucial. Even after a bill is submitted, ongoing attention and effort are needed; once it passes, a collaborative system across ministries should be built for effective execution. This way, we can enhance the bill’s practical impact and promote AI’s healthy development. In fact, government agencies also struggle just to set up committees and audits. It’s less about the lack of experts, and more due to overly conceptual approaches to 'AI.' When I’ve talked to them, I’ve often seen cases of using AI at high expense for problems that don’t really require it.
AI seems to be the key technology shaping the future of our society. Fixing the issues with related bills and finding ways to improve them is truly a national priority. Now’s the time for the legislature, executive, experts, and civil society all to pool their strengths and wisdom. If we work together, I’m confident Korea can become a leading nation in the AI era. (Though honestly, filtering out some of the weird groups along the way… is probably needed.)
I keep bringing this up, but neighboring countries, as well as the US and EU, are holding in-depth discussions about AI. What's more, with the recent oversupply, protectionism is overtaking free trade almost everywhere, with countries turning to more selfish stances—so I think it’s vital to keep up this discussion at a societal level. The First Lady’s luxury bag or airline meals might be important, sure, but for Korea as a country, now is a critical time for real conversations and tangible research support around AI.
Subscribe to 'haebom'
📚 Welcome to Haebom's archives.
---
I post articles related to IT 💻, economy 💰, and humanities 🎭.
If you are curious about my thoughts, perspectives or interests, please subscribe.
haebom@kakao.com
Subscribe
1
Haebom
See latest comments