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 response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS