The Korea Times

Data makes societies less intelligent

In the previous column, I argued that the artificial intelligence (AI) era will be defined less by access to technology than by what I called collective learning capacity. This is the continuous cycle through which organizations and societies detect signals, interpret them, decide on a course of action and learn from the results. I closed by suggesting that the first place this capacity is breaking down is also the most fundamental: the basic ability to tell signal from noise. In this column, I explore why, paradoxically, more information is currently making modern societies less, not more, intelligent. For most of human history, information was overwhelmingly scarce. The civilizations and institutions that gathered, preserved and transmitted data most effectively consistently outperformed those that did not. Our entire architecture of progress — from universities to corporate hierarchies — was built on the assumption that more information would naturally and inevitably produce better outcomes. The goal was always to acquire more. That assumption is now breaking. We generate more inf

1d agoBy Charles Chang

Charles Chang

AI divide: It's not technology but learning capacity

In the previous column, I argued that artificial intelligence (AI) will not so much replace humans as expose the systems we have built. The real divide of the AI era, I suggested, will not be technological. Instead, it will be a divide in what I called “collective learning capacity.” There are questions that remained unanswered. What is that capacity? Why does it vary so widely between organizations and societies? And finally, why is AI about to make those variations decisive. Learning capacity, in the sense I mean it here, is not the ability of an individual to absorb new information. It is something collective. A team of brilliant individuals can sit inside an organization that learns nothing. A society of intelligent citizens can produce institutions incapable of adapting. The intelligence of the parts does not determine the intelligence of the whole. What I mean by learning capacity is the ability of an organization, an institution or a society to adjust its behavior to a changing environment, faster than the environment outpaces it. Every adaptive system — biological, organiza

May 31, 2026By Charles Chang

AI divide: It's not technology but learning capacity

Charles Chang

AI won’t replace humans, it will expose weak systems

The global debate over artificial intelligence (AI) keeps returning to the same anxiety. As machines grow more capable, the warning goes, human relevance will decline. Mass unemployment, the collapse of expertise, the eventual replacement of human judgment — each new model revives the script. Predictions of a world where machines outthink, outwork and outpace their human creators now dominate headlines and policy discussions alike. But the real disruption may be something else entirely. Not human replacement, but the exposure of weak systems. Technological revolutions rarely reward capability alone. Steam power, electricity, the internet and smartphones each transformed civilization, but none produced prosperity automatically. Their gains depended on institutions that could absorb them — governance structures, coordination mechanisms and the ability of societies to adapt under changing conditions. AI will be no different. What it changes is the price of analysis. High-level expertise and judgment, once expensive and slow, are becoming cheap and fast. For centuries, organizations com

May 13, 2026By Charles Chang

AI won’t replace humans, it will expose weak systems

Charles Chang

Crisis of collective intelligence: When digital speed outpaces human learning

Across the global landscape, a subtle but consequential transformation is fundamentally altering the way modern societies perceive and react to reality. In the United States, political discourse has largely devolved into parallel monologues where opposing sides no longer share a common vocabulary. In Europe, public opinion swings with jarring volatility in response to viral narratives that often vanish as quickly as they appear. In many developed democracies, trust in traditional institutions continues to erode even as citizens grow more certain of their own isolated views. This is not merely a fleeting political trend, it has now become a structural shift in our "information ecology" — the digital environment in which we live, think and interact. As we stand at the threshold of the age of agentic artificial intelligence and hyper-connectivity, we are discovering a disturbing paradox: the more information we produce and consume, the less we seem to understand together. At the heart of this shift is a breakdown in "collective learning" — the vital ability of a society to accurately

Mar 30, 2026By Charles Chang

Crisis of collective intelligence: When digital speed outpaces human learning

Charles Chang

Breaking the authoritarian network: Strategic pivot in 2026

For much of the past decade, global politics has been framed through familiar narratives: democracy vs. authoritarianism, renewed great power rivalry or the return of Cold War-style blocs. Yet as we navigate the volatile geopolitical landscape of 2026, these descriptions increasingly miss a deeper structural reality. Today’s strategic competition is not simply state vs. state. It is increasingly network vs. network. Over the past several years, a number of authoritarian regimes — most prominently Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba — have developed what might be called an authoritarian resilience network. Unlike formal alliances such as NATO, this system is informal and opportunistic. It is bound not by shared ideology but by a pragmatic logic: mutual survival under pressure. These governments cooperate in ways that help them withstand sanctions, diplomatic isolation and economic constraints. They share financial workarounds, military technology, energy flows and diplomatic support in international forums. Individually, many of these states face significant inte

Mar 23, 2026By Charles Chang

Breaking the authoritarian network: Strategic pivot in 2026

Charles Chang

What March 1 teaches us about strategic unity

Every March 1, Korea pauses to remember. We raise Korea's national flag, the Taegeukgi, recite the 1919 Declaration of Independence and recall the citizens who filled the streets of Seoul and Pyongyang. But commemoration cannot end at ritual. Anniversaries of this magnitude must serve as checkpoints — a moment to ask what the past demands of our present. In 1919, Korea had neither sovereignty nor institutional power. The state was absorbed by imperial rule. Military recourse was impossible and diplomatic leverage was minimal. Yet across cities and villages, Koreans mobilized with astonishing coordination. Without modern communication, students, merchants, farmers, religious leaders and intellectuals converged on a singular objective: independence. The strict social hierarchy of the late Joseon era temporarily dissolved. Regional, religious and generational boundaries softened in the face of a shared national imperative. The March 1 movement did not achieve immediate liberation. The demonstrations were suppressed and independence remained decades away. But its strategic significance l

Feb 26, 2026By Charles Chang

What March 1 teaches us about strategic unity

Charles Chang

Why the AI revolution needs the ‘silver generation’

Born in the 1960s, I grew up alongside the technological tidal waves that reshaped our modern world. I watched the home computer move from a curiosity to a necessity. I saw the internet erase geographic boundaries, and mobile technology place the world in our pockets. Each of these eras produced pioneer-visionaries who saw opportunities where others saw only novelty. I admired them, learned from them and benefited from the worlds they built. But I was rarely one of them. For much of my career, my focus lay elsewhere. I spent decades building security operations, managing risk and navigating organizations defined by urgency and crisis. While the "tech bros" of Silicon Valley were breaking things, I was the one fixing them. That path shaped me deeply, placing me firmly in the role of a responder rather than a disruptor. Looking back, I realized I had let those previous revolutions pass me by, assuming that innovation was the domain of the young. But as artificial intelligence (AI) accelerates, I recognize something unmistakable: Artificial intelligence presents an inflection point equal t

Jan 25, 2026By Charles Chang

Charles Chang

Data makes societies less intelligent

AI divide: It's not technology but learning capacity

AI won’t replace humans, it will expose weak systems

Crisis of collective intelligence: When digital speed outpaces human learning

Breaking the authoritarian network: Strategic pivot in 2026

What March 1 teaches us about strategic unity

Why the AI revolution needs the ‘silver generation’

Top 5 stories