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
In a meeting with Haitian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean-Victor Harvel Jean-Baptiste on Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) vowed to continue providing aid to Haiti. Taiwan supports Haiti with development in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and education through initiatives run by the Taiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF). The nation it has established itself as a responsible, peaceful and innovative actor committed to global cooperation, Jean-Baptiste said. Testimonies such as this give Taiwan a voice in the global community, where it often goes unheard. Taiwan’s reception in Haiti also contrasts with how China has been perceived in countries in the region
The world has become less predictable, less rules-based, and more shaped by the impulses of strongmen and short-term dealmaking. Nowhere is this more consequential than in East Asia, where the fate of democratic Taiwan hinges on how global powers manage — or mismanage — tensions with an increasingly assertive China. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has deepened the global uncertainty, with his erratic, highly personalized foreign-policy approach unsettling allies and adversaries alike. Trump appears to treat foreign policy like a reality show. Yet, paradoxically, the global unpredictability may offer Taiwan unexpected deterrence. For China, the risk of provoking the
On April 13, I stood in Nanan (南安), a Bunun village in southern Hualien County’s Jhuosi Township (卓溪), absorbing lessons from elders who spoke of the forest not as backdrop, but as living presence — relational, sacred and full of spirit. I was there with fellow international students from National Dong Hwa University (NDHU) participating in a field trip that would become one of the most powerful educational experiences of my life. Ten days later, a news report in the Taipei Times shattered the spell: “Formosan black bear shot and euthanized in Hualien” (April 23, page 2). A tagged bear, previously released
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote