South Korea's National Leap Strategy in the Age of AGI

Presenting a Concrete Roadmap for South Korea’s Survival and Prosperity in the Age of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)

• In-depth comparative analysis of AGI governance models from OECD, EU, USA, and China
• A sober assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of South Korea’s AI strategy
• Four core execution strategies to leap forward as a global AI pivotal nation

The dawn of the AGI era presents significant opportunities and challenges for South Korea. As global competition unfolds in a ‘block competition’ pattern with different rules, establishing our own AGI strategy has become more crucial than ever. This article aims to analyze the trends in the global regulatory chessboard, diagnose South Korea’s current status, and present a concrete blueprint for the future.

Part 1: Current Status of Global AGI Governance – Comparison of Four Major Players’ Strategies

With the opening of the AGI era, the world has begun an invisible regulatory war. Understanding the trends of major players such as OECD, EU, USA, and China within the ‘block competition’ is the first step in formulating our survival strategy.

OECD Standards – The Cornerstone of Global Trust

The AI principles of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are not legally binding, but they effectively serve as the ‘common language’ and ’textbook’ for global AI discussions. Established in 2019 and revised in 2024, these principles convey the message of “Innovate with AI technology while safeguarding human rights and democratic values.”

The true value of these principles lies in their role as a ‘buffer’ that prevents complete regulatory fragmentation by providing a minimal common denominator that even the US and EU, with their differing regulatory models, can agree upon. This functions as a diplomatic safety device for the global order, akin to a ‘Geneva Convention’ for the AI era.

The ‘Brussels Effect’ of the European Union (EU) – A Rights-Centric Fortress

The EU’s AI Act is the world’s first comprehensive AI legislation established under the philosophy that “the rights and safety of citizens come first.” It classifies AI into four risk categories (unacceptable, high-risk, limited risk, minimal risk) and imposes strict obligations on high-risk AI even before market launch.

The most powerful weapon of this law is the ’extraterritorial application’ principle. Even South Korean companies must comply with this law if they launch AI products in the EU market. The EU is leveraging ’trust’ into legislation to create a premium brand of ‘AI compliant with EU standards’ and is employing a ‘weaponization of regulation’ strategy to seize global standards.

The ‘Innovation First’ Approach of the United States – Competition for Hegemony

The United States has adopted an ‘innovation first’ approach, saying, “Regulation can wait; let’s run first!” Particularly, the Trump administration’s ‘AI Action Plan’ defines AI as a strategic asset for global hegemony, emphasizing speed, deregulation, and ideological control.

The core strategy is to leverage the government procurement market through ‘anti-woke AI’ provisions to set the value standards of AI models centered on the US and export them to allies in the form of a ‘full-stack AI package.’ This is a powerful soft power strategy aimed at implanting the US political agenda in other countries beyond mere technology exports.

China’s ‘Sovereign AI’ – A National Control Model

China follows a ‘sovereign AI’ line that prioritizes national security and social stability. All AI must adhere to the principle that “it must uphold socialist core values,” under strong government control.

However, this regulation has a clever dual structure that exempts R&D or AI for internal corporate use that is not disclosed to the public. While it functions as a ‘Great Wall’ that strongly controls and blocks foreign companies’ entry, it also establishes a ‘walled garden’ strategy that enhances the innovation speed of domestic companies internally.

Part 2: Current Status of South Korea’s AGI Strategy – Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses

Having grasped the global competitive landscape, it is now time to take a sober look at ourselves. We analyze South Korea’s national strategy, laws, and industrial capabilities to clearly diagnose our current position.

‘AI G3’ Vision – South Korea’s National Strategy

The government is making large-scale investments in key infrastructure such as national computing resources and domestic AI semiconductors under the ‘World’s Top 3 AI Powers (AI G3)’ vision. This is a strong expression of the will to secure ‘AI sovereignty’ by localizing the brain (computing power) and skeleton (semiconductors) of AI.

However, there is a risk of a ‘hollow-core’. Even if we build world-class hardware, it can become useless if we lack top-level AI experts to utilize it. The severe shortage of AI talent is a challenge that must be addressed.

AI Framework Act – Balancing Practicality

South Korea’s ‘AI Framework Act’ has chosen a ’third way’ that balances between the EU’s strictness and the US’s freedom. While adopting a risk-based approach, it does not prohibit specific technologies and focuses on promoting the industry by lowering penalty levels.

This can be seen as a ‘regulatory arbitrage’ strategy that aims to ease the burden on domestic companies while keeping in mind entry into the EU market, making it a clever compromise considering both the international community and domestic industry.

Technological and Industrial Capabilities – Opportunities in On-Device AI

South Korea’s strongest weapon is its hardware technology centered on semiconductors. The emerging ‘On-device AI’ trend presents a golden opportunity to maximize this strength. On-device AI refers to technology that operates AI on devices themselves, such as smartphones and cars, rather than in the cloud.

As the center of AI shifts from the cloud to ‘devices’, South Korea’s vertically integrated manufacturing capabilities from semiconductors to finished products can shine. This is the most certain path to leap from being a ‘fast follower’ to a ‘market leader’.

Human Capital – Failures and Lessons in AI Education

Despite our excellent technological capabilities, the ‘human’ issue remains our decisive limitation. The government’s ambitious ‘AI Digital Textbook’ policy has effectively failed due to a lack of communication in the field. Policies pushed without consensus from teachers, parents, and students leave a painful lesson that success is unattainable.

I also recognize the importance of AI education, but it makes me reflect on how hollow policies that ignore the voices from the field can be. National AI strategy should be a social and cultural project that goes beyond technology dissemination to win the hearts of people.

Comprehensive Comparison of Global AI Governance Models

The philosophies and approaches of AI governance in each block show distinct differences. To grasp this complex situation at a glance, we have summarized it in a table.

Table 1: Global AI Governance Comparison Framework

Parameter	European Union (EU)	United States (Trump Administration Plan)	People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Main Goal	Build trust through rights protection; set global standards (“Brussels Effect”).	Achieve geopolitical and economic hegemony (“Winning in Competition”).	National control, maintain national security and social stability.
Legal Means	Comprehensive, legally binding regulation (AI Act).	Executive orders, deregulation, federal procurement rules (AI Action Plan).	Nationally issued administrative measures (temporary measures for generative AI).
Core Approach	Risk-based (unacceptable, high-risk, limited, minimal); ex-ante suitability assessment.	Market-driven, deregulation; geopolitical competition.	State-centered; content-based censorship and political control.
Scope of Application	Extraterritorial application; applies to providers launching AI in the EU market or affecting individuals in the EU.	Focus on federal procurement, data center construction, and exports to allies.	Applies to generative AI services provided to the public within China.
Core Obligations	Strict requirements for high-risk systems (data quality, oversight, documentation).	Ideological neutrality for federal procurement (“no bias”); methodology disclosure.	Compliance with “socialist core values”; provider accountability for content; security review.
Position on Innovation	Balance with regulation; promote through regulatory sandboxes.	Top priority; accelerate through deregulation and infrastructure investment.	Encouraged, but only within strict national control boundaries (e.g., non-public R&D is exempt).
Enforcement	Centralized (AI office) and member state authorities; high fines.	Contractual means (federal procurement); export controls.	China’s Cyber Space Administration (CAC) and other national agencies; service suspension.

Four Core Strategies for South Korea to Lead in the AGI Era

Beyond analysis, we now present a concrete AGI strategy blueprint for South Korea to leap forward as a global AI pivotal nation.

1. Navigating Geopolitical Headwinds: ‘Two-Track’ Diplomacy

In a situation where we cannot choose between the US and EU/China, a ’two-track’ diplomacy that cleverly engages both sides is necessary.

• Track 1 (Pragmatic Acceleration with the US): Actively utilize US-led open-source AI models to reduce the technology gap while ‘Koreanizing’ them to fit South Korean values.
• Track 2 (Regulatory Diplomacy with the EU): Strive for our AI laws to be interoperable with EU laws, making ‘Made in Korea AI’ a symbol of ‘EU regulatory compliance’.

2. Securing True ‘AI Sovereignty’: Leading the On-Device AI Market

A ’leapfrog strategy’ is needed to create gaps in areas where we excel. The core of this is dominating the on-device AI and AI semiconductor markets.

• AI Semiconductor Roadmap: Mobilize national capabilities to develop next-generation AI semiconductors (NPU, PIM) and create standards for ‘Korean AI chips’.
• Building an On-Device Ecosystem: Promote a flagship project of ‘K-On-Device AI’ that connects chips, OS, AI models, and final apps.
• Startup-Corporate Synergy: Establish a ‘synergy fund’ that combines the capital of large corporations with the innovative technologies of startups.

3. Building a ‘Trustworthy AI’ Brand

In the era of deepfakes, ’trust’ is the strongest competitive edge. South Korea must position itself as a global leader in ’trustworthy AI’.

• National XAI Initiative: Designate ’explainable AI (XAI)’ technology that explains the reasoning behind AI judgments as a national research project and mandate its application in public sectors such as healthcare and finance.
• Modernization of Product Liability Law: Amend laws to include AI systems as ‘products’ to clarify liability for accidents caused by AI.

4. Cultivating an AI Native Nation: Investment in Human Capital

The success of all strategies ultimately depends on ‘people’. We must completely reform the education system to create an ‘AI native’ nation.

• Reform of Primary and Secondary Education Curriculum: Designate AI as a mandatory independent subject like English and Math, teaching AI ethics and data discernment skills.
• Teacher Training ‘Manhattan Project’: Launch a large-scale national AI training program for all teachers.
• University and Lifelong Learning: Expand AI contract departments linked to the industry and establish an ‘AI retraining fund’ to support workers’ transitions.

Conclusion

The path for South Korea to leap forward as a global pivotal nation in the AGI era is clear. Summarizing the four core AGI strategies presented in this article:

1. Manage geopolitical risks and turn them into opportunities through ’two-track diplomacy’.
2. Maximize our hardware manufacturing capabilities through ‘on-device industrial strategy’.
3. Build a ’trustworthy AI brand’ to turn ethical values into new commercial competitiveness.
4. Create an AI native nation where all citizens understand and utilize AI through ‘investment in human capital’.

If we implement this blueprint, South Korea can stand as a key ’lever’ in the AGI era that harmonizes technological innovation with democratic values, becoming the focal point of future society.

What are your thoughts on this AGI strategy? Feel free to share your opinions in the comments.

References

• OECD AI principles | OECD
• EPIC OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence
• OECD Legal Instruments Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence
• University of Pittsburgh Barreling Towards “Significant Misalignment”: A Comparative Examination of AI Regulation In The European Union And United States
• Artificial Intelligence Act EU Artificial Intelligence Act
• CSIS AI Regulation is Coming- What is the Likely Outcome?
• European Parliament EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence
• Workforce Bulletin From Data Centers to Ideology: Decoding the Latest AI Executive Orders
• AP News From tech podcasts to policy: Trump’s new AI plan leans heavily on Silicon Valley industry ideas
• The Times of India Donald Trump vows to keep these AI models out of America
• The White House White House Unveils America’s AI Action Plan
• Hogan Lovells China finalizes generative AI regulation
• ResearchGate Navigating AI Regulation: A Comparative Analysis of EU and US Legal Frameworks
• Ministry of Science and ICT National AI Strategy Policy Directions
• Businesskorea Korean Government to Develop Physical AI Nurturing Roadmap
• Korea.net National AI Computing Center Establishment Plan Announced
• The Korea Herald Korea’s AI sovereignty hopes face test under new US push
• IAPP Analyzing South Korea’s Framework Act on the Development of AI
• CSET Assessing South Korea’s AI Ecosystem
• FPF South Korea’s New AI Framework Act: A Balancing Act Between Innovation and Regulation
• World Economic Forum How South Korea is developing human-centred technologies
• Debevoise Data Blog South Korea Enacts New AI Law
• Friedrich Naumann Foundation South Korea slows down on AI education
• Ministry of Education AI Digital Textbooks for 2025 to Realize Personalized Education for All
• OECD.AI National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence
• DMI-IDA FACT SHEET: President Biden Issues Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence