[AI Rulemaker]⑥ Im Moonyoung: "Sovereign AI Investment Severely Lacking... Securing Homegrown Models Must Come First"

"Just one year of investment in independent models... too soon to discuss effectiveness"

"Fears of AI-driven job loss and privacy infringements are overblown"

"Severe punishment for misuse of personal data... open up public-interest data uti

Editor's NoteFollowing the European Union (EU), South Korea became the second country in the world to enact a fundamental law on artificial intelligence (AI). Now, half a year after the law came into effect, is the legal and institutional framework keeping up with the rapidly evolving changes in technology and industry? Through the [AI Rule Maker] series, The Asia Business Daily meets with politicians who have led AI-related legislation and explores institutional solutions for South Korea to survive in the global AI competition.

Im Moonyoung, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, highlighted the government's sovereign AI policy, stressing that "the problem is not excessive investment, but rather a serious lack of it." He views an indigenous foundation model as the bedrock of national existence and argues that investment must be focused until a domestically developed model reaches a certain level of maturity.

Known as President Lee Jaemyung’s “AI strategist,” Assemblyman Im has played a key role in shaping government AI policy as a member of the Presidential National AI Strategy Committee. After being elected in the recent by-election as representative for Gwangsan-eul in Gwangju, he moved to the National Assembly, where he is responding to the changes of the AI era through legislative initiatives.

Im Moonyoung, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, is being interviewed by The Asia Business Daily in his National Assembly office. 2026.8.26 Photo by Kim Hyunmin

In an interview with The Asia Business Daily last month, Im said, “It’s only been a year since we started investing in an indigenous foundation model project, so it’s too soon to talk about its effectiveness.” He emphasized, “Investment is essential, as the process of building sovereign AI creates numerous industrial ecosystems.”

He also opposed arguments that focus should be placed on applications and services rather than foundation models. Im questioned, “How could we propose making other dishes (applied AI) when we haven’t even prepared the basic ingredients (sovereign AI)?” He continued, saying, “We need to first put the indigenous foundation model on the right track, and then develop diverse applied services based on it.”

Im defined AI as a “civilizational transformation” rather than a mere technology. He said, “In the past, there were reference cases to guide us, but in the AI era, we must find solutions ourselves—and the goals keep changing.” He stressed, “We have to break the rigidity in state operations, including employment, education, budgets, and administration.”

He also presented the idea that, amid the U.S.-China competition for AI supremacy, Korea should develop its own third domain. Im stated, “South Korea needs to participate as a ‘board member’ whenever the major countries gather to discuss global AI strategies.” He argued, “We must expand investment in the open-source ecosystem while connecting Korea’s strengths in manufacturing and science and technology with AI to find new opportunities.”

Im also cautioned against excessive concerns over AI-driven job loss. He noted, “It's not so much that AI is reducing the labor force; sometimes, companies use AI as a pretext for laying off existing employees.” He emphasized that both fears—AI eliminating all jobs and unrealistic expectations that AI will create a huge number of jobs—are excessive and that changes must be validated against actual implementation cases.

He also called for a balance between personal data protection and data utilization. Im said, “Our society is excessively fearful of personal data breaches,” describing it as ironic that “punishment for leaked or misused personal information remains lenient.” He insisted, “We should open the path for using personal data for technological progress, but harshly punish malicious uses such as voice phishing and stalking.”

Im Moonyoung, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, is interviewed by The Asia Business Daily at the National Assembly office. 2026.8.26 Photo by Kim Hyunmin

The following is a Q&A with Assemblyman Im.

-After shifting from the Presidential AI Strategy Committee to the National Assembly, what tasks have come to the forefront?

▲Previously, we could refer to the correct answer and assign ministries by role, then simply march toward the objective. Now, as an advanced nation in the AI era—a time no one has experienced—there is no obvious right answer. We have to find solutions ourselves, and the target itself is a moving one. The role of the National Assembly is to coordinate policies across ministries, overcoming silos, and to create laws and policies to address new challenges.

-Do you see AI as more than just a step forward in technology?

▲AI is not just about learning a new technology to make more money. It is a civilizational transformation that changes politics, the economy, and society as a whole. We need to soften the rigidity in employment, education, budgets, and resource allocation, and change the way we manage all those areas. With change moving this quickly, we can’t be wedded to annual budgets—we should be able to create budgets over just one or two months if needed.

-There is criticism that the government is overly fixated on sovereign AI.

▲The problem is not excessive investment in sovereign AI, but a glaring lack of it. It's been less than a year since the government began investing in the domestic foundation model project—how can that possibly be excessive? Sovereign AI is the foundation for national survival, and in this process a broad ecosystem is born. It is obviously a necessary investment.

-What is your view of the argument that focus should be on applications and services rather than foundation models?

▲Ideally, we should work on foundation models and applications simultaneously, but there is a natural sequence. You cannot discuss making other dishes when the core ingredients and the stock haven’t been prepared. We need to bring an indigenous foundation model to a certain level first, then build various applied services upon it. We shouldn’t scatter our investment at the outset just because we feel pressed for time.

-What kind of AI strategy should Korea pursue between the U.S. and China?

▲We should carve out a third domain of opportunity. Whenever major countries meet to discuss global AI strategies, Korea must become a ‘board member.’ We invest less than 1% in the open-source ecosystem, which accounts for 90% of the world’s software. We need to increase open-source engagement and connect our strengths in manufacturing and science and technology with AI.

-How will the “AI Fundamental Society” proposed by the Lee Jaemyung administration change people’s lives?

▲Imagine every citizen having their own personal assistant—one who takes care of health, cares about worries, economic management, and schedules, and informs you ahead of time if there’s a problem. Just as Hunminjeongeum lowered knowledge barriers and led to democratization and informatization, universal AI could also neutralize existing powers reliant on knowledge inequality and information asymmetry.

-You serve as the AI Democracy Subcommittee Chair on the Democratic Party’s Committee for Party Innovation. Why is this important?

▲It’s not about simply using AI in politics—politics itself can be fundamentally transformed. Today's representative democracy assumes 'space'—regions—as the basis, but in the future, we might elect representatives based on 'time'—generations. For instance, choosing male and female representatives by age group means young people would be preparing for the next 30, 40, or 50 years of their lives. We need to rethink democracy from the ground up.

-Why did you sponsor the “K-FDE Promotion Act” as your first bill?

▲FDE (Frontier Deployment Engineer) refers to young AI natives and digital experts entering small and medium-sized enterprises to identify and resolve issues themselves. It’s neither job support, nor consulting, nor system integration (SI). It spans many ministries, including education, employment, entrepreneurship, and R&D, making it hard to explain within the existing framework. I aimed to create legal and budgetary grounds suited to this new domain.

-There are widespread concerns that AI will take people’s jobs. What is your view?

▲It is true that AI is expected to reduce jobs, and jobs are, in fact, disappearing to some extent. However, it’s not necessarily AI that is reducing work—it’s that companies sometimes use AI as a pretext for layoffs. Both fears that “AI will eliminate all jobs” and hopes that “AI will create vast new ones” are excessive. We should compare and verify actual implementation cases and respond swiftly as changes unfold.

-How should the conflict between personal information protection and data utilization be resolved?

▲We’re overly sensitive and fearful about the idea of privacy breaches. But if we develop new drugs using cancer patients’ data, those patients benefit; blocking that simply on privacy grounds ultimately harms them. And yet, punishment for leaking or abusing personal data is mild—this is the irony of our society. We should open up data use, while strongly punishing abuses like voice phishing and stalking.

-What is the key to making Gwangju a successful autonomous driving demonstration city?

▲Gwangju is the only city in the country that has offered itself as a demonstration space for autonomous driving. To harness the data, challenges, and strengths discovered in the demonstration process, we need an integrated support system from the central government. There should also be structures for direct citizen participation. We need to design everything concretely—who the autonomous driving controllers will be, what new insurance products will look like, and who will be held responsible in the event of an accident.

-What role do you expect Hyundai Motor Company to play?

▲Hyundai Motor Company should clearly communicate its autonomous driving strategy and vision for the future, so that its small and medium-sized partner companies can prepare accordingly. In the U.S., leaders of tech companies announce their plans in advance and suppliers and partners respond accordingly. Such disclosure not only poses questions to society but also serves as a process for adjusting strategy through collective intelligence. Hyundai Motor Company needs this kind of leadership, too.

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