[Editorial] AI Ethics Announcement: Regulation Is Necessary, but It Must Not Stifle Innovation

The government has established ethical principles that will serve as guidelines for the healthy development and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The framework was shaped through broad public input, following the release of a first draft in May and a major public forum on the 14th. It is built on three core values — human dignity, the public good of society, and the sustainability of humanity — and includes seven principles: human-centeredness, privacy protection, fairness and inclusiveness, accountability, safety, reliability, and transparency. This effort matters because AI is already having a profound impact across society, including on human jobs. It is time to set guidelines for the development and use of AI technology. In that sense, the announcement of these principles is timely.
AI ethics principles will affect not only individual lives but also industrial policy and many other areas. For that reason, the principles proposed by the government must be grounded in reason, not in an idealized view. AI ethics should therefore become a practical standard that can be applied voluntarily in the field, rather than a regulation that constrains innovation. When new technologies emerge, it is not desirable to label them as vague threats and immediately reach for regulatory tools. Likewise, we must move beyond the outdated mindset that treats AI as something inherently dangerous and requiring caution at every turn.
Such a biased view could easily end up holding back industrial development. We must not forget that we are living in an era of global competition, where the United States and China are battling for technological advantage by the second. The two countries are locked in an extremely close race to advance AI technology. If we allow ourselves to be tied down by unnecessary regulation and hesitate, we will be left behind. This should not be distorted into the claim that ethics must be abandoned in order to secure industrial competitiveness. The point is that we must guard against the habit of defining AI as a threat from the outset and turning ethics into a one-sided set of regulatory rules.
Fortunately, these principles are not a new legally binding regulation, but a form of self-regulation. That does not mean their influence should be underestimated. Sector-specific AI ethics standards, policies, and guidelines that are developed in the future will use these principles as their top-level reference.
In fact, reactions to the principles already differ by sector. Industry is concerned that AI ethics principles could eventually expand into detailed preemptive regulations. Civil society argues that citizens affected by AI should be recognized as rights-bearing actors. There are also calls for the principles to more clearly include procedures for objections and remedies for harm caused by AI.
Today’s announcement is not the end, but the beginning. The greater challenge lies in ensuring that these principles do not remain a declaration on paper, but take root in practice. AI is now an essential infrastructure, not an option. The ultimate goal of establishing these principles is not to treat AI as a dangerous enemy and lock it tightly within regulatory boundaries. They were created to find a path for humans and AI to coexist in trust and to contribute to the progress and prosperity of humanity.
If AI ethics rules become an obstacle that slows the pace of innovation, we will fall into a dilemma that blocks human prosperity. The AI ethics principles that were so difficult to reach must become a solid foundation for the AI industry to compete confidently on the global stage, not a pretext for regulation.