South Korea on Tuesday became the first country to deploy a full-fledged 5G network, a milestone that underscores the intense competitive race between Western powers and their Asian rivals, led by China, to dominate next-generation mobile communications technology.
The new legislation, which would require other countries to develop their own laws or risk unruly imports, is called the AI Basic Law and aims to show how powerful AI systems can be developed and used in a controlled way – especially in a field where malfunctioning causes not only inconvenience but real harm.
People are watching this decision from outside Seoul, and partly because it's a risky assumption, but also because it's risky and raises a question many countries are asking: If artificial intelligence is changing this quickly, can governments afford to be slow to regulate?
We have already written about the announcement and early reactions in reports on the introduction of the act itself, its impact on start-ups and concerns related to compliance with the regulations.
It's a story South Korea implementation serves as an indication of how serious the country is about moving from a free-for-all to a licensed and monitored industry when it comes to artificial intelligence.
What sets South Korea apart is the way it so clearly defines its circle around artificial intelligence, which it considers “high-impact,” systems that operate in areas such as health care, public infrastructure and finance.
In other words, these are places where AI is no longer just an answer to a question or an image generator, but a driver of outcomes that have real consequences for people's money, safety and lives.
Under the new system, these systems will require greater supervision and, in many cases, explicit human supervision.
This may sound obvious, but in practice it's a radical departure because the whole point of automation is to remove humans from the loop. South Korea is basically saying: Oh, not so fast.
If an algorithm can determine someone's future, then someone should be responsible for it.
This expectation – human responsibility for machine decisions – is quickly becoming a novel tenet of contemporary artificial intelligence policy, and it is an element that technology companies are often secretly afraid of.
The bill also immediately addresses one of the most controversial aspects of the current artificial intelligence explosion: synthetic content.
If artificial intelligence creates something realistic, people need to be made aware of it.” The South Korean law adds some elements to the concept that generative AI products should, in some cases, be flagged as a policy response to escalating fears of deepfakes, impersonations and AI-based disinformation.
And well, it's hard to argue with inspiration. We are entering an era in which the average person can no longer trust that they will be able to recognize what is real – not only in photographs, but also in audio and video recordings.
The policy direction here broadly aligns with the broader international push to increase transparency of AI content.
The broader context is also evident in the way this story was repeated and covered outside of Reuters' coverage.
This part of the international business reach explains why global markets follow them closely.
While policymakers describe it as a trust-building step, startups warn that compliance expectations could end up being an anchor to their ankles.
It's not the law's intentions that upset early-stage founders – it's what they know about its operational realities.
And each step of the process – documentation requirements, risk assessments, oversight mechanisms, labeling standards, reporting obligations – takes time, lawyers and process. Large companies can absorb this.
A small AI startup operating with a handful of employees and minimal runway? Not always. Cost is not the only concern. It's about uncertainty.
When founders can't easily define how to apply policies, they often lay off or leave entire product domains untouched.
And in AI, hesitation is deadly because the pace is relentless. This tension between security and haste has repeatedly emerged in other countries as they try to establish guardrails against artificial intelligence, but South Korea is moving faster and decisively than many of them.
This analysis-oriented coverage reflects the impression that Korea is trying to regulate at the front of the curve rather than at the tail.
What's really intriguing is that South Korea isn't doing this out of fear – it's doing it out of ambition.
The country wants to be a serious global power in artificial intelligence, not just a consumer of models built elsewhere.
But AI regulation has moved from being a governance issue to a matter of geopolitical competition.
Governments encourage innovation but are afraid of being left behind. They want startups, not scandals.
They want bold technology, but not the kind that can shatter trust overnight.
The South Korean strategy appears to be an attempt to maneuver between conflicting goals: keep the AI engine humming, but install the brakes before anyone gets hurt.
The issue will be how the law will be enforced in practice, if it is effective. If this guardrail is drawn flexibly and transparently, South Korea can ultimately demonstrate that major AI innovations can coexist with guardrails.
However, if enforcement became too stringent – and regulatory compliance became a maze to navigate – you would run the risk of AI not being built there or anywhere, and founders either building elsewhere or avoiding high-impact domains altogether, relegating cutting-edge sensitive AI applications to only the largest players. This would be an ironic outcome for a law intended to make artificial intelligence safer for everyone.
For now, South Korea has taken the first step in what appears to be a new phase in the AI race: not who can build the biggest model, but who can build the most powerful AI while maintaining public trust.
More countries will follow suit. Some will copy Korea. Some will argue with this. Others will wait and see what is released.
Either way, the world is watching as South Korea tests what AI governance looks like when it's no longer theoretical.
If you're looking for a local politics lens, this is it Korea-focused explanation gives you a useful idea of how these rules are shaped differently at home.
