[The Editors' Verdict] In the Age of AI, Who Owns the 'Excess'?

From National Dividends to Sovereign Wealth Funds, Solutions Differ
"No One Has an Answer for How the Enormous Profits from AI Should Be Shared"
Public Debate Needed on Excess Profits and Surplus Tax Revenue, Not Hasty Conclusions

Are the excess profits generated by artificial intelligence (AI) solely for the benefit of corporations, or do they possess a public character that should be shared to some extent? Debates are intensifying over how to use excess profits and surplus tax revenue in the AI era. As Kim Yongbeom, the Blue House policy chief, proposed a 'national dividend,' and following SK hynix, Samsung Electronics decided to pay performance bonuses worth hundreds of millions of won through a labor-management agreement, questions are being raised: "Where and how should the massive profits and tax revenues gained through AI be used?"

Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Younghoon proposed a 'social solidarity wage' that emphasizes sharing performance and social redistribution. Vice Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Koo Yooncheol stated that Korea Future Investment Corporation (see The Asia Business Daily, June 2, pages 1 and 3) would inject surplus semiconductor tax revenue into a Korean-style sovereign wealth fund. The purpose is for the fund to serve not just as a strategic investor, but as a 'savings account' for future generations, channeling corporate growth achievements back into the national wealth. In Singapore, up to 50% of the returns from managing sovereign wealth are distributed to the government, accounting for as much as 20% of the annual budget. Minister of Planning and Budget Park Honggeun suggested that the strengthened finances from surplus tax revenue should serve as a catalyst for growth, while Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jungkwan stressed that, as this is an investment golden time, the top priority for utilizing corporate profits should be productive reinvestment.

Although this may appear to be a confrontation between distribution and growth, their underlying concerns are not fundamentally different. All agree that the excess achievements created by AI should not be monopolized by any particular entity. Last month, Pope Leo XIV published the first AI encyclical, "Magnifica humanitas (Great Humanity)," which shares this perspective. The Pope stated that "disarmament is necessary to prevent AI from dominating humans." Chris Olah, who worked at Google and OpenAI before co-founding Anthropic, attended the event and said, "AI systems are not designed like bridges or airplanes," and "they are 'grown' on structures roughly modeled after the human brain, built upon the immense legacy of human thought and language." He especially noted, "Even AI companies are not free from commercial pressure, geopolitical competition, or organizational ambition," and "the more important issue is that no one has an answer to how the enormous added value created by AI should be shared with society as a whole."

There are also many who oppose the views of Olah and Chief Kim. Some may argue why society should share in the profits generated by AI, while others warn that allowing AI achievements to concentrate solely in certain companies and investors will exacerbate social conflict. While it may seem that only Samsung Electronics and SK hynix are currently generating excess profits, it is also reasonable to argue that, since these two companies have ushered in the era of excess profits, the discussion should start with them. There must be a forum for debate involving all sectors on the scope of AI companies, the criteria for excess achievements, predictions of future performance trends, and the need for social redistribution.

The same applies to surplus tax revenue. In the past, if tax revenue exceeded forecasts, it would prompt criticism of the government’s revenue projections or accusations that the government had collected too much tax from citizens and companies. However, surplus tax revenue in the AI era is fundamentally different in character. Therefore, it is not a resource that the government or political circles can use freely at their discretion. As this is an unexpected resource not reflected in the main budget, even stricter principles and broader social consensus are required. Now is not the time to finalize the answer, but to begin searching for it. Lee Kyungho, Economics Editor

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.