AI Side Wins on Returns

The contest, structured as a direct comparison of returns between human and AI trading approaches, concluded with the AI posting the stronger result. The AI strategy reportedly succeeded in its approach to stock selection, delivering gains that exceeded the human competitor's performance over the contest period.

The matchup reflects a broader wave of Korean media experiments testing whether AI-driven strategies can beat human judgment in live market conditions. In this case, the machine proved more effective in chasing returns.

Caveats on the Official Statistics

One element of the story could not be fully substantiated. Koscom's official statistics table on the number of contract holders ('계약자 수') is listed as non-public or unpublished, meaning the figure could not be confirmed against an official source. This leaves a gap in the record: the headline outcome — the AI's victory on returns — stands, but one supporting statistic remains outside the realm of what is publicly checkable.

The discrepancy does not overturn the core result of the contest, but readers should treat the unsubstantiated subscriber figure with caution until Koscom publishes the data.

What Remains Uncertain

Beyond the unverified statistic, the exact terms of the contest — the duration of the comparison, the capital allocated to each side, and the risk profile of the two strategies — were not fully detailed in the available material. Performance contests of this kind are also sensitive to timing, and a single-period result does not establish a durable advantage for either human or AI trading.

The claim, on balance, holds up: the AI did win the human-versus-AI returns contest, while one supporting statistic could not be independently confirmed. As it stands, the claim is Mostly True.

Verdict: Mostly True