The government declared the realization of an 'AI Basic Society' and will formally implement the 'AI Basic Act' that will institutionally support it from 2026. The Ministry of Science and ICT defined AI simultaneously as a driver of industrial growth and public infrastructure across society as a whole, presenting safety, trust, and ethics as core principles.
However, the question is clear. Is the AI Basic Act a minimum guideline for safety, or is it a new regulatory framework defining innovation?
The Meaning of the 'AI Basic Society' Declaration
The AI Basic Society the government talks about goes beyond a structure where only some companies or experts use AI, to a society where all citizens enjoy the benefits of AI. To this end, the government announced it would concurrently promote the enforcement of the Digital Inclusion Act, expansion of AI Digital Learning Centers, and distribution of customized AI services for vulnerable groups.
This is a policy transition of viewing AI not as a market product but as social infrastructure. At the same time, the state positioned itself as a responsible entity for managing AI risks.
Core of the AI Basic Act: 'High-Impact AI' and Accountability Structure
The core of the AI Basic Act is a management system for high-impact AI. The government plans to require impact assessment, securing transparency, specifying responsible entities, and safety verification for high-impact AI. This is an approach similar to the European Union's AI Act.
The problem is the scope of application. If the definition of high-impact AI is broad, medicine, finance, education, and public services as a whole may be included in the regulatory targets. This has the potential to result in dramatically raising innovation costs under the pretext of securing safety.
The Shadow of 'Ex-Ante Regulation' Under the Pretext of Safety
The government explains the AI Basic Act as 'creating a trust base' rather than 'ex-post regulation.' However, looking at the actual institutional design, impact assessment and certification systems can effectively function as pre-entry barriers.
Large corporations and public institutions have the capacity to handle this, but for startups and small to medium enterprises it is a considerable burden. As a result, there is also the risk that the AI Basic Act simultaneously raises market safety while fossilizing the industrial structure.
Norm Leadership or Prior Regulation?
The government sets out the goal of leading AI norms in the international community. Plans also include strengthening global cooperation such as participating in the India AI Summit and UN AI governance discussions.
However, leading norms also means creating regulations first. In a situation where technology competition is fierce in the global market, if domestic companies must first endure regulation, this may lead to weakened competitiveness. The balance between norm leadership and industry protection is the key variable for policy success.
'Trust' Is Not Created Only Through Law
The keyword emphasized by the AI Basic Act is trust. However, trust is not formed by legal provisions alone. Technology transparency, handling of responsibility for failures, and communication with users must operate together.
An approach that treats AI only as a risk factor has the potential to ultimately fix AI as an object of control. This may actually lower technology acceptance in the long term.
On the Boundary Between Safety and Innovation
AI Basic Society and AI Basic Act are unavoidable era choices. The problem is direction. Results differ depending on whether to strengthen regulation in the name of safety, or to expand autonomy based on trust.
Whether the AI Basic Act will be a brake on innovation or a safety belt for trust depends on operating principles and enforcement methods.
If the government truly wants an AI Basic Society, what must be designed first is not regulation but a boundary where autonomy and responsibility coexist.
