In most highly developed economies, the knowledge economy constitutes a significant share of human activity.
Knowledge policies may refer to decisionmaking about public affairs that is based on knowledge, and not ideology, religion or personal belief.
Some knowledge can be harmful. Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) methods of weakening, impoverishing, fooling, exhausting and humiliating people were gleaned from knowledge from The Book of Lord Shang (商君書) by the ancient Chinese statesman and political reformer of the Legalist school Shang Yang (商鞅), considered the most evil book in Chinese history, to apply stringent laws to control the people.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), who worships Mao, promotes state entities, but suppresses private enterprises. Confucianism, by comparison, has always maintained the need to “enrich the people to strengthen the nation.”
Knowledge policies may provide institutional foundations of resource management for global competitiveness with cultural values such as equity, unity and the well-being of citizens to adapt to social and technological evolution, and set up the paradigms to guide institutions. We must assess the effects of applying knowledge. The intelligence of making such decisions may define success or failure.
China, for example, achieved an economical miracle by targeting annual GDP growth rates, only to accrue a burdensome national debt.
A free society with open access to cyberspace may enable people to obtain relevant information and specialist knowledge. However, to intelligently opt for the right solution to the specific issue often remains a challenge. A police state, as a rule, will seldom allow the right knowledge to be shared, let alone informed solutions.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. The key for obtaining an intelligent solution is to look at the problem and choose the right tool for it, not the other way around.
We are witnessing the dawn of the intelligent economy and policies, despite the dark side that artificial intelligence (AI) may bring. However, we can expect AI to do more good than harm.
Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) reportedly wants to build a headquarters in Taiwan. As Taiwan has the best healthcare system in the world, according to last year’s edition of CEOworld Magazine’s Health Care Index, it is only fitting for him to pursue AI developments in medicine and healthcare.
An intelligent economy will feature smart services, convenient transportation, environmentally friendly production, personal learning, individual medicine, robust research, prompt rescue and security measures, and so forth, which would take human civilization to a new level. The question is whether AI will enable intelligent policies to help end global warming, poverty and homelessness, inequality, racial bias and, most importantly, war, as humans seem incapable of doing that.
An AI judicial system could be a project worth trying. That would require hearing arguments from the opposing parties, examination of evidence and going through the world’s knowledge and legal precedents to come to a sensible verdict.
Given that IBM’s Deep Blue defeated the world chess champion in 1997, AI could most likely offer a better resolution than the permanent members of the UN Security Council at the least. Its impartiality hopefully will help seek a consensus through debate, and persuade the masses and politicians alike.
When it comes to injustice, the world is better off having an AI system serving as an advocate that offers intelligent policies.
James J.Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS