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.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS