In Junior-high school science class, we assembled radios, motors and even an Apple II computer. We understood the principles behind how those devices worked and interested students could even write code in different programming languages to perform specific functions.
However, the complexity of computers and applications has advanced far beyond ordinary people’s understanding.
As programs continue to evolve, the computational processes behind social prejudice, human rights violations and even human health are to disappear in the black box of algorithms. No one will be able to understand them and once things begin to go awry, there will be no one to take responsibility.
In an article in this month’s issue of Nature, Harvard University law professor Yochai Benkler put forward concerns about the development of artificial intelligence (AI).
In AI research, development and innovation, technology companies such as Google and Apple play a decisive role and prevail over many governments and nonprofit companies, Benkler wrote.
As businesses direct the development of AI, it is unavoidable that they would use their own data and influence in ways that are beneficial to themselves as they determine the effects of their business systems on society and morals, and then incorporate that into their programs.
In the foreseeable future, algorithms are to influence every aspect of everyday life, such as health, insurance, finance, transportation, national defense, law and order, news, politics, advertising and so on.
If all these algorithms are designed based on the interests of certain businesses or groups, they will move away from the public interest.
As machine learning algorithms are based on existing data, future systems could become permanently unfair unless people design fraud prevention measures.
However, most of the time when a government is involved in management or prevention of abuse, it sides with those who want to block technological and social progress.
For example, to win votes from taxi drivers and disadvantaged groups, politicians have been blocking Uber and automation.
Tragically, the technologies that politicians are able to understand and block are the ones that are mature, stable and pose no threat. When it comes to AI’s possible threat to human rights and fairness, politicians are incapable of understanding the implications, let alone create measures to prevent abuse.
Taiwan has solid foundations in science, technology and education, and the development of AI presents a good opportunity.
If the government does not want to oppose scientific and technological development, and wants to guide companies to maintain a balance between their own and others’ interests, it must stop imposing laws and instead rely on the humanities, reason, data and science.
For example, government agencies should subsidize independent research by universities and research institutions on the effects of AI technology.
This should not only be the responsibility of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Health and Welfare, and Ministry of Education, but also involve the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Justice and others.
The government should also conduct cross-industry and cross-departmental discussions on how to regulate businesses so they share enough data to prevent abusive development of AI.
Su Kuan-pin is a professor and director of China Medical University’s College of Medicine and Mind-Body Interface Research Center.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
Last month, two major diplomatic events unfolded in Southeast Asia that suggested subtle shifts in the region’s strategic landscape. The 46th ASEAN Summit and the inaugural ASEAN-Gulf-Cooperation Council (GCC)-China Trilateral Summit in Kuala Lumpur coincided with French President Emmanuel Macron’s high-profile visits to Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. Together, they highlighted ASEAN’s maturing global posture, deepening regional integration and China’s intensifying efforts to recalibrate its economic diplomacy amid uncertainties posed by the US. The ASEAN summit took place amid rising protectionist policies from the US, notably sweeping tariffs on goods from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, with duties as high as 49 percent.