Usually, politicians often do the opposite, cutting the civil engineering budget and trying to maintain the R budget. If a politician who envisions the future is aiming for this, it is correct. But I think the President may not be familiar with the science boldly because [music] the President may not know the article well. Because [music] the President, oh, nice to meet you. Congratulations on becoming a new member this time. Thank you. Well, besides the fact that I asked a question, we have prepared a science common sense quiz up to a few questions. Yes, it seems to be getting harder as we go. In the beginning, it's easy, but the first question is, Among the following, which one is derived according to Einstein's theory of special relativity? I don't know. Still, this is too easy. So, number 1... Oh, number 1... The second one may be a bit difficult. Next, Which element is most abundant in the universe, among the following? It might have changed a lot.

Hydrogen turns into helium, and for some reason, it feels like helium. Helium, right? Ding, number 1. Unfortunately, that's incorrect. So, since this is about computer science, what does GPT stand for? Number 2. Oh, you got it right. Indeed, this is the hottest thing these days. What word fills in the blank? HPM. That's correct. Oh, the last question is quite difficult. This was a question that appeared in Samsung Electronics' semiconductor exam. Oh my, once you see it, it's really difficult. Oh, why did you choose number 4? Just a gut feeling. Oh, you got them all correct. Yes, it seems like you are really up to date. Now, let's get straight to the point. This time, the issue was a significant budget cut in R&D. Also, many researchers were concerned. It could be quite a sensitive topic, but could you show us this briefly? The President also congratulated on the election victory.

You sent me this fire. Yes, yes. So, it can be a quite sensitive topic, but how do you see the current government's reduction of R&D budget? I think having a Blue House office is good to some extent, but if the president tries to cut 30% or 20% like in reality, starting from the weakest point, everything falls apart. The bottom line is that even senior researchers who are at the top of the pyramid, their budgets are almost untouched, but rather, now the budgets of those with less experience have been significantly reduced. So, my friends, who are graduate students, researchers, and even those who are professors in public universities, if you ask them, they will tell you that this time, when evaluating the budget and projects, the budgets of senior researchers are almost not cut, but instead, the budgets of the younger, less experienced researchers have been greatly slashed. That's why there is a sense of confusion and frustration. Usually, politicians do the opposite, reducing the budget for infrastructure and increasing the budget for R&D.

If a politician who aims for the future is trying to protect, it's correct. But the President boldly mentioned cutting GTX, as you said. The student researchers are saying that their salaries are being significantly reduced. As a result, the weakest areas are likely to be cut first. Do you have any thoughts on what we should do? From a budget perspective rather than a scientific perspective, it seems that putting budgets into projects that immediately show visible results and help the nation is preferred, while cutting those that don't. This is a common approach when cutting budgets. I don't think the President knows much about science because he tends to claim he is good at what he has experience in, like investigations. Scientists are generally good people who don't often face investigations. So, I wonder if he really understands the dynamics of this industry.

I see, RNG is not successful, and not making money, right? It could have gone like this. But now, isn't it the day when Korea lives by using their brains? Since resources are scarce, I heard that it's very important. However, there seems to be no context. The semiconductor industry needs to be developed, suddenly talking about entering the space industry worth trillions, but Korea should not follow. Reasons for these somewhat contextless statements ultimately seem to have approached too narrowly. If we take a narrow approach, when we look at the science and technology policies in our country, there are various ones coming out, right? What do you think is the most lacking point here? Finding scientists or heroes is something we used to do in the past, even in sports.

There was a time when how many gold medals one won was very important, but now, how much those sports are integrated into daily life is more important. I think things like this are considered more important. For me, sports in daily life is also a form of science. While some may become leading developers and create new technologies, most people play a role in applying and utilizing them. So, the foundation should be laid more widely. However, it seems that the scope of technology and science is not expanding well. For example, when I first attended university in the United States, Harvard, being a very prestigious school, would give a zero if you used Wikipedia. Oh, really? Yes, if you used Wikipedia to do homework and based your sources on that, you would get a zero.

In the process of graduating, I actually started teaching how to search on Google well. However, as we enter a new era, whether you have that knowledge or not can impact the productivity of the entire nation. Expanding that knowledge used to be limited to resources like Wikipedia or Google, but now, utilizing things like GPT is important. It's quite crucial how we use and apply abilities like GPT. In reality, it's a bit lacking in South Korea. It's a bit embarrassing to say, but we are now operating a science and technology startup, and the government supports these initiatives, right? Since we used to work in large companies, we are not good at dealing with government-related matters. So, we tried to apply for GPT, and it was approved.

However, I'm not sure how well I can understand the text below GPT, but I think it's going to be a big problem if I become like Galapagos. Yes, that's what I'm thinking. These days, even when I go to GitHub or places like that, people don't develop programs perfectly. What I mean is, they develop a few necessary libraries and then connect them to GPT to create their own bots and play a role in assembling them. Nowadays, if you look at Excel functions, in the past, there were many people who meticulously coded Excel functions. Then, they shoot most of it with GPT, receive it again, put in the prices, and some people write macros like that. I believe that in the future, each of these utilization skills will become very important. In fact, in South Korea right now, many people are just doing things that can be done with GPT. Yes, just inputting and everything comes out right away.

I feel quite disappointed in some parts, and I think my progress in politics is very slow. Two years ago, someone encouraged me and sparked my enthusiasm. I publicly shared my recorded conversations using Naver's Clova Note. I have a friend who works at Naver, and after it was revealed that I used Clova Note for political purposes, the traffic to the Clova Note service quadrupled. Now, when I go to the National Assembly, reporters are preparing to ask me political questions one by one, unlike three years ago when I was preparing to avoid them. After I spread Clova Note, most notes used in the National Assembly were Clova Notes. You were more in the field of applied areas rather than the basic area. But recently, if you look at the articles that have come out, in terms of R&D investment in South Korea as of 2020, it is 94 trillion won, which quantitatively ranks fifth in the world. But Nobel

It's a scientific award. Many people say, If this is the only thing that comes out of it, isn't it a bit disproportionate for so many people to invest in it? Do you have any opinions on this? In my opinion, if basic research results in remarkable achievements by R&D personnel, we should allocate significant resources to it. Even though we are already investing heavily in several core businesses, we should allocate some resources to risky investments. Ultimately, we need to invest in areas that may not generate immediate profits but are essential for the future. Therefore, I believe that we should invest with the mindset of monopolizing certain standards, where industrial development and basic science are intertwined, and profits are made. For instance, in my current position, although there are various themes in Korea, I focus on investing in technologies like nuclear fusion.

It wouldn't hurt to secure it once. I think so because in the U.S., most research ultimately becomes commercially linked, conducting many commercially meaningful studies. In our case, we have conditions to make more aggressive investments based on government funding and such. Therefore, I think it's okay to choose a few key technologies and pursue them. However, despite that, it's not a good sign that our basic science in Korea is still lacking in terms of Nobel Prizes. Are there reasons and solutions for this deficiency? In Korea, even professors at national universities may not have an environment to focus on research. No matter how much they are professors at national universities, where do they usually focus?

I am also involved in administrative work, and compared to other countries, the workload for classes in our country is excessive. How about the class workload in the United States? In the United States, professors are actually dedicated to research. So, for tenured professors, they usually only teach one graduate class, and many of them don't teach any other classes. However, in our country, professors who should be focusing on research, like researchers in their 30s and 40s, when you look at them, they are burdened with paperwork and teaching obligations, which prevent them from focusing on their research. Therefore, their research is almost at a standstill. In my opinion, this is basic research, not some simple task like putting eyes on a doll. Spending ten hours on it doesn't necessarily result in double the outcome. Yes, that's right. There are many things that require contemplation and inspiration. I remember last month, when I had the opportunity to have a discussion with the Minister of Trade, Industry, and Energy, and some young researchers.

One of the biggest complaints of new researchers may not be the best term to express it, but that's what it was. The paperwork is too excessive. At that time, the minister said, If a project exceeds 500 million won, we will definitely assign separate administrative personnel to handle the paperwork. A senior researcher with 20 years of experience, who witnessed this, jokingly said, Oh, I heard the same thing when I came 20 years ago. But why does this keep happening? In the end, they mistakenly believe that they can control everything only if they make the rooftop solid. Whether it's a support project or evaluation, it should be strict, but in reality, the scrutiny afterwards is so strict.

If you think you shouldn't do it, but I think we are somewhat reversed. Evaluation is done loosely, and various relationships interact and live, and later, when trying to grasp it, it goes crazy. I think that is a problem of a bureaucratic society. It's not just a problem in the R field, but it's a bit disappointing. When issues like placing administrative matters for snacks worth more than 500 million won come up, why do they just cut it off from above? I feel like it's not necessary. For example, that should be done as additional work by researchers or teachers themselves. Why do they have to allocate people for that? That's exactly it. It's like thinking of R&D or research as sticking eyes on a doll. Sticking eyes on a doll. So, if sticking eyes on a doll takes an hour, then 10 rows

If you attach one dog and it's two hours, attach 20 dogs, and it goes like this. This is almost just going linearly, right? But actually, when researchers are thinking about how to deal with the down payment loan, it's just a day of politics. That's right. So, in fact, minimizing concerns about such things is the prognosis for researchers. That's how I think. So, in the past, it's a very old story, but during President Park Chung-hee's time, for example, giving a house fundamentally to a fun scientist, providing enough supplies to eat and live, starting from things like that. When you start working, for example, in a situation where the pay you can receive at Visa and Samsung Electronics differs by more than three times, the level of immersion in research changes. That's right. However, such things are happening in reality now, overseas employment and South Korea.

In a situation where the salary gap in employment has widened, no matter how much of a professor you are, you cannot stop overseas employment. Well, things like that are natural, right? By now, there should be a certain level, and that's when the difference becomes apparent. I once conducted a survey with about 30,000 people in the YouTube community. These days, they say in China, Korean scientists are leaving, offering nine times the salary. Honestly, when asked anonymously if you won't get caught, would you go or not, more than 70% said they would. Well, that's the right choice to go. What I want to say is, for example, in our country, in the end, in the old days, if I did science and technology, back in the day, with just a pen, notebook, and simple tools, people could do research.

These days, even if the level of technology is a bit high, if it is not an environment where companies can do that, they cannot. So, you have to do interdisciplinary research. For example, if you want to do research on AI-related semiconductors, in Korea, it's not an environment where feminists can easily work. Yes, in order to do that, you may have to work overseas like in Diana from the beginning. So, for someone who wants to major in that field, it naturally becomes a path to work abroad. It's not like doing something similar and slightly changing your thoughts, it's completely different from your major, like going to Samsung Electronics and designing memory semiconductors. I see it this way; a significant part of it should be handled by the company, and in fact, in terms of technological competition and talent competition, companies need to be at the forefront.

When that happens, as I mentioned earlier, the most significant role in terms of salary structure and such things within a company is played by the labor union. However, in Korea, the conceptualization of white-collar unions is still not well-established. We tend to have a certain image of unions based on what people in Ulsan do, but that's not the case at all. So, now that I'm observing the labor union activities in Samsung Electronics for the first time in Hwaseong, I'm curious to see how the union will evolve. I'm also pondering how the low-wage system for low-wage workers in Korea can be changed. I've been thinking about these issues. I've tried a few balance quizzes. Don't think about it, just push it to 5,000.

It would be good if you could answer this, but if Congressman Lee Jin-seok allocated a budget of 1 trillion won, 1st solar energy business, 2nd nuclear energy business, I prefer nuclear energy. And if I could choose in nuclear energy, I would like to try investing in nuclear fusion, which is a bit different from the conventional concept. Why did you choose solar energy? Companies will take care of it themselves. Even without government support. So, solar energy, the technology itself, is now stabilizing. From what I see, nuclear energy is a bit... Besides that, there are other points to consider. By any chance, is Congressman Lee Jun-seok still investing in stocks? This time, all the congressmen sold them. Ah, then if you now had to invest all your assets in one place, 1st KOSPI index-tracking ETF, 2nd NASDAQ adjustment ETF, for example, who will change jobs.

In the media, if someone like that is exposed, for example, for leaking technology or leaking it overseas, it's a completely blocked system. Even before the exact facts are revealed, what I'm saying is, in the political sector, many tech-related scammers appear. That's why citizens haven't spent a single penny in the metaverse. But if I go and talk to the grandfathers about this now, I think it makes sense. Why is that? But those grandfathers are as educated as they are, with good academic backgrounds and good education. But why do they think that's reasonable? Then selling coins to grandfathers and expensive things, that's a different story. If you say to the grandfathers, If you do this, your assets will increase by 100 times, they would say, Oh, really? If you look at it, even a child decides to go into politics with 50 million won.

I don't want to have a meaningless conversation just because you came in, so I won't make a list and just talk. If you want to just do business with concepts, that's possible. But I believe in not saying things that don't make sense from the start. I want to discuss a very fundamental question: how can we make people engage in entrepreneurial activities and dedicate themselves to it? How can researchers focus on their research without thinking about opening a fried chicken restaurant in the middle? I want to address these deep concerns. I believe that individual scientists or researchers' happiness is more important than making me look great. For example, many of you who work at Samsung commute by bus at 6 or 7 in the morning, I understand your hardships very well.

"대통령이 과학 대신 부동산을".. 이거 진짜 올려도 되나요? 이준석 역대급 돌직구

기술 전문가들이 만든 기술 전문 채널

학생들에게는 과학자의 꿈을, 성인들에게는 기술의 안목을 전달합니다.

반도체/자동차/로봇/제조/이차전지/AI/바이오/ESG/신재생/디스플레이 등 기술 전반을 다루고 있습니다.

- 비즈니스 문의: heisenberg230801@gmail.com
- 개인 문의: 인스타그램 @softdragon__ 
