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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with