Politics, not AI, may be the greater threat

The author is a lawyer and the head of the political news department at the JoongAng Ilbo. Calls are growing within the legal and accounting professions to reduce the number of new entrants passing qualification exams. The argument is not new, but its urgency has changed. Just two or three years ago, it was a question of how large a share of the market each professional could secure. Now, it is about whether such a share will exist at all. Major law firms and accounting firms are sharply cutting recruitment of entry-level lawyers and accountants. The reason is straightforward: AI is rapidly replacing many of the functions these professionals once performed. Jobs long regarded as relatively secure, insulated from economic cycles and corporate restructuring, are among the first to be disrupted. A senior partner at a large law firm recently said that even if people capable of strategic decision-making and managing networks will still be needed in 10 to 15 years, there is now uncertainty over how such talent can be cultivated if entry-level hiring continues to shrink. Firms recognize the need for a pipeline of future leaders, yet appear unwilling to preserve jobs for that purpose. The media industry is undergoing a similar transformation. AI systems have already begun to replace specialized roles such as copyediting, graphics and layout. When reporters input their material into AI tools, the systems can generate articles or columns that replicate the tone and style of both the publication and the individual journalist at a competent, if not exceptional, level. The belief that human thought must be expressed by human hands is holding on, but only barely, like a sandbag against a rising tide. These rapid changes inevitably raise questions about the future. For some, the concern is personal. What kind of work will the next generation be able to do? What should they study, and what values should guide them? If parents are already grappling with such uncertainty, it is difficult to imagine the weight of these questions for the young people who must answer them. Despite their significance, these concerns have yet to be translated into concrete political or policy agendas. Instead, political leaders have largely focused on competition. Candidates for regional office are promising to build data centers, produce semiconductors that power AI and expand robotics industries, while pledging to supply the necessary electricity, water and labor. The central government appears similarly preoccupied with how to compete in the global race for AI dominance. Yet these discussions remain dominated by a single assumption: that victory in competition is the overriding goal. There has been little debate over whether it is appropriate to devote so much of society's capital and natural resources to this effort, or how to protect people's livelihoods in the radically transformed society that may follow. Younger generations are already aware that they are largely excluded from decisions about how resources are allocated. Many participated actively in recent political events, contributing to high voter turnout and political change. Yet they are increasingly distancing themselves from the two major parties. According to a March survey by Gallup Korea, the proportion of independents among people in their 20s stands at 45 percent for men and 46 percent for women, more than double the levels seen among those in their 40s and 50s. At the same time, their thinking is deeply political. In interviews conducted in early April with people in their 20s, many expressed concerns about shrinking job opportunities regardless of economic growth, delays in pension reform and the burden of rising national debt being passed on to future generations. What they lack is not awareness, but confidence that existing political parties have either the ability or the will to address these issues. The question, then, is why a generation that has experienced intense political events...