Choi Tae-won, Chairman of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Chairman of SK Group. Yonhap News

Choi Tae-won, Chairman of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Chairman of SK Group, spoke of the "limits of export-oriented growth" and proposed economic cooperation between Korea and Japan and AI investment as solutions. However, his remarks are assessed as repeating the growth logic of the industrial age, overlooking the reality that AI is rewriting the structures of capital and power. 

AI capitalism is no longer a matter of technology but a new governance system, DGS (Digital Governance System), where data and algorithms replace the state's design rights. Nevertheless, he continues to explain the future in the language of 'market and investment.'

In an interview with YouTube economic channels SamproTV, Understanding, and Apggwon on the 26th, Chairman Choi said, "Falling behind in AI can be a major risk," and "Investment cannot stop." He compared the AI hegemony competition between the US and China to an arms race, explaining that "investment in semiconductors and infrastructure is inevitable." 

However, this approach is criticized for viewing AI solely as a technological competition or investment target. AI has already evolved beyond being just a part of industry; it is becoming the digital governance infrastructure that encompasses finance, administration, and law. This is an era where 'who designs' determines national sovereignty, rather than 'how much is invested.'

The DGS era signifies a realignment of national power structures from the ethical framework of ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) to Digital–Governance–System. Capital now follows code over ethics, and markets follow algorithms over values. A nation's governing power stems not from its ability to collect taxes but from its ability to design data. If this change is not understood, industrial policy can devolve into a structure of dependence rather than a discourse of growth.

Competition in the age of AI capitalism is shifting from investment or production to design. The US and the EU are establishing new regulatory frameworks such as AI ethics, data portability rights, and digital taxes, creating a national 'design constitution.' 

However, it is pointed out that Korea's chaebol-centric growth theory still operates around capital input and market expansion. This is because AI is not just a technological issue but the language of national governance and the constitution of economic sovereignty, and Chairman Choi's remarks are perceived as lacking that structural understanding.

In the same interview, he stated, "The export-oriented growth formula that has continued since the 1960s has reached its limit," and "Korea and Japan must create a new growth formula together." He explained that the two countries' cooperation could form a new domestic market amidst strengthening protectionism.

However, this is analyzed as a solution that broadens the scope of the market rather than restructuring the industry. In an era where AI is rewriting the laws of growth, it is pointed out that cooperation alone cannot explain systemic change.

He said, "If Korea and Japan cooperate, they can create a market worth $6 trillion and form the world's fourth-largest economic bloc." The logic is that Korea's strengths in semiconductors and batteries, and Japan's in materials, components, and equipment, allow for mutual complementarity. 

However, the proposed 'Korea-Japan cooperation theory' appears to be an extension of the existing division of labor rather than actual technological integration.

In the age of AI capitalism, competition depends on securing design rights for data and algorithms, not on the sum of GDP. Therefore, his plan is evaluated as remaining at the level of expanding market scope without departing from the logic of the industrial age.

Mention of regulatory reform also followed. Chairman Choi stated, "Policies that unconditionally protect small and medium-sized enterprises are outdated," and "We must shift to policies that support growing companies." He also proposed, "We need to create a 'Mega Sandbox (large-scale special economic zone)' that establishes AI experimental grounds and testbeds in regions." 

However, his 'deregulation theory' is criticized for being a logic that espouses freedom while neglecting the responsibility of design. This is because in a reality where AI is blurring the lines between public and private sectors, regulation is not merely a constraint but a mechanism for designing the structure of law and administration. There are concerns that this could lead to transferring the state's design responsibility to the market in the name of innovation.

He presented a 'new growth formula,' but its content remained a combination of technological optimism and market expansion theory. In an era where AI has become the 'constitution of capital' and algorithms have become the 'language of administration,' growth is no longer an issue of investment or cooperation. 

Given that data sovereignty and industrial design determine national survival, market-centric growth theory leaves the state's design capabilities empty, amounting to an attempt to explain the 21st century in the language of the 20th century. How will he receive this assessment?

In the age of AI capitalism, the state is no longer a market regulator or supervisor. It must be a designer that controls data flows, designs algorithm standards, and determines industrial direction. For his remarks to become a true 'new growth theory,' it is necessary to heed the suggestion that we must move beyond the language of the market to the language of the system, that is, the 'language of design (DGS).' 

#ChoiTaewon #KoreaChamberofCommerceandIndustry #SKGroup #AICapitalism #DGSEra #IndustrialSovereignty #DataSovereignty #KoreaJapanEconomicCooperation #TechnologicalOptimism #PoliticalDesign