[New York = E-Daily Seong Joowon Correspondent] An analysis suggests that the growing call to slow down the pace of artificial intelligence (AI) development stems not only from concerns about technological safety but also from the massive investment burdens and profitability issues faced by Big Tech companies. Amid conflicting interests between AI developers and semiconductor suppliers, some point out that stricter safety regulations could actually serve to solidify the market dominance of existing large corporations. It was also advised that Korean companies should focus on tangible results and risk management capabilities rather than blindly matching the scale of AI investments made by their competitors.

Heo Seong-wook, a senior advisor at BKL Pacific Law Firm who previously served as Director General of the Network Policy Bureau at the Ministry of Science and ICT and President of the National IT Industry Promotion Agency, diagnosed the “AI speed control” debate in a column for “BKL Perspectives” on the 20th as a clash of interests involving technological safety, profit distribution among companies, and competition for global hegemony.
Following recent warnings about the risks of AI by Dario Amodei, CEO of leading AI company Anthropic, who called for a slowdown in development, executives at OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Microsoft (MS) have also expressed agreement on the importance of ensuring safety.
Advisor Heo highlighted the possibility that economic interests are at play behind these moves. He noted that while AI companies are pouring astronomical amounts of capital into their operations, they are failing to generate the expected returns; in this context, the safety debate could serve as a justification for moderating the pace of investment.
He analyzed that while it is difficult for individual companies to slow down on their own as long as competitors continue to invest, if safety issues emerge as a shared agenda, there is room to alleviate the investment burden. In particular, he viewed this as an opportunity for Anthropic and OpenAI—which are pursuing large-scale additional funding, including initial public offerings (IPOs)—to improve their financial structures and increase their corporate value.
However, while Advisor Heo noted that this cannot be definitively identified as the companies’ actual motivation, he highlighted that the justification of ensuring safety aligns with their economic interest in improving profitability.
In contrast, NVIDIA advocates for accelerating AI development. Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA, dismissed concerns about AI runaway and argued that development must be accelerated. Advisor Heo explained that NVIDIA’s interests differ from those of AI service companies, noting that a slowdown in development could lead to reduced investment in graphics processing units (GPUs) and data centers.

Advisor He also mentioned that last September, NVIDIA and Micron’s stock prices fell by 3.4% and 5.3%, respectively, on the U.S. stock market, while the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index dropped by 5.9%. The analysis suggests that while a potential reduction in AI investment could lead to cost savings for service companies, it could fuel concerns about declining demand for semiconductor firms such as NVIDIA, SamsungElectronics(005930), and SK hynix(000660).
U.S. President Donald Trump also opposes slowing down the pace of AI development. Advisor Heo interpreted that the Trump administration not only prioritizes the competition with China for AI supremacy but is also considering the impact that a slowdown in AI investment would have on economic growth ahead of the midterm elections.
Advisor Heo assesses that this debate is a critical business variable for Korean companies as well. While the pace of AI investment is unlikely to slow significantly as long as the U.S.-China technology competition persists, he argues that companies should prioritize investments based on tangible results—such as productivity improvements, cost reductions, and new revenue streams—rather than blindly matching the investment scale of competitors.
In particular, Advisor Heo warned that the debate over AI safety could lead to stricter regulations across various industries, including finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and distribution. He explained that while this would benefit existing large corporations with the capital and personnel to navigate complex regulations, it could create new barriers to entry for startups and latecomers.
He emphasized that in an era where AI agents participate in corporate decision-making, systems for managing risk are just as important as the adoption of the technology itself. He argued that a company-wide management system is necessary to determine who is responsible for AI’s erroneous judgments, the scope of tasks to be delegated to AI, and when human intervention is required.
Advisor Heo predicted that future competitiveness in AI will be determined not by the mere speed of development, but by the ability to manage and control that speed. A Ph.D. in computer science specializing in AI, he currently serves as chairman of the Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) Forum and provides consulting services in the fields of IT and broadcasting/telecommunications, information security and privacy, regulatory compliance, and government and National Assembly affairs.