[Teheran-ro] Conditions for an AI Powerhouse

'Three major mega projects for a great leap forward in Korea' were unveiled: semiconductors, Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers, and Physical AI. What stood out most was the president's closing remarks that day. As Lee Jae-myung wrapped up the public briefing on the three major mega projects, he said, "I was actually surprised over the past few days." He explained that although the government had long worked to make balanced national development a core national priority and to promote investment in the regions, this policy set goals that were far higher than expected.
To be honest, I felt the same way. When the three projects were first revealed in a report last week, expectations were not especially high. All three were terms that had already appeared often in previous policy announcements. I thought the government might offer little more than a plausible blueprint. For the AI data center plan, for example, I was skeptical that it would include specific locations and timelines. The key questions were whether the site, construction date, and scale would actually be announced.
Unexpectedly, the government did announce the specific location and the year of construction. It also disclosed the scale.
What matters most in a policy announcement?
One disappointment in the science and technology sector lately has been that issues about people have drawn more attention than the policies themselves.
In the K-Moonshot Project, for instance, controversy arose over the qualifications of the Project Director overseeing each of the 12 missions. The K-Moonshot Project is a large-scale Research and Development (R&D) plan aimed at solving major national challenges with AI. Its goal of supporting 12 advanced technologies was pushed to the background. The Project Director at the center of the dispute has now resigned, and the post will remain vacant for the time being.
The same pattern appears in AI policy. The National AI Strategy Committee under the President, created by the new administration to match its push to become an AI powerhouse, has effectively seen a key post, the Chief of AI Future Planning, left vacant just one year after launch. The vacancy of someone once seen as a symbolic figure for AI was enough to dampen expectations for the policy itself. Although speculation is circulating about a successor, expectations for the role of the AI Strategy Committee are no longer what they once were.
In the end, it is a reminder that the people who shape policy are those who quietly communicate with industry and plan ahead. Still, the question remains: did the Project Director for K-Moonshot or the AI chief for the AI Strategy Committee really matter? Symbolic figures do matter in policy. But perhaps the policy itself matters even more.
The briefing served as a reminder of a simple truth: it is not the flashy title, but the policy itself, that must contain real substance.
jiany@fnnews.com Reporter