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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization