At Computex 2025, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) urged the government to subsidize AI.
“All schools in Taiwan must integrate AI into their curricula,” he declared.
A few months earlier, he said, “If I were a student today, I’d immediately start using tools like ChatGPT, Gemini Pro and Grok to learn, write and accelerate my thinking.”
Photo: REUTERS
Huang sees the AI-bullet train leaving the station. And as one of its drivers, he’s worried about youth not getting on board — bad for their careers, and bad for his workforce.
As a semiconductor supply-chain powerhouse and AI hub wannabe, Taiwan is seeing explosive growth in AI-related jobs. Taiwan last year averaged 240,000 AI-related openings a month — a 29 percent jump since 2019. The National Development Council says we’ll need 200,000 AI professionals by 2029.
In response, Taiwan has scrambled. The Taiwan AI College Alliance aims to train 10,000 professionals in three years. AI electives are rolling out in 23 high schools, supported by online platforms accessible even in rural areas.
Photo courtesy of the Ministry of Education
But we’ll need more than engineers: marketers to test ideas, journalists to verify facts, nurses to enhance care. Every job will have an AI layer.
LinkedIn’s 2025 report predicts that by 2030, 70 percent of the skills used in most jobs will change, with AI as the key driver. Education must prepare people for that too.
TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
The Ministry of Education (MoE) has responded with Generative AI learning partners and AI competitions for younger students. It’s training teachers and released Digital Teaching Guidelines 3.0 to help schools integrate AI while managing risks. These initiatives are the equivalent of preparing electric batteries for the AI bullet train.
On this front, Taiwan is holding its own. Singapore mandates AI and ethics modules. South Korea plans AI classes in all high schools this year and is retraining 5,000 teachers. Finland emphasizes using AI to promote creativity, transparency and citizenship.
But the clock is ticking. The threat isn’t just about cultivating AI talent. It’s about reskilling the broader workforce before it’s left behind. For many translators, copywriters and media designers, the train has already departed. Generative AI has replaced or sidelined many of them — relegating them to the dusty steam engine trains of yesterday.
Next in line? Entry-level jobs.
A global LinkedIn survey of 3,000 senior executives found that 63 percent expect AI to absorb many of the repetitive tasks now done by entry-level staff. IBM’s 2025 CEO study says 61 percent of CEOs are deploying AI agents. Microsoft reports 82 percent of companies plan to add them as “digital team members” within 12–18 months.
Taiwanese companies? The Microsoft report says 88 percent of Taiwanese CEOs view this year as critical for rethinking strategy. A PwC survey found that while only 8–10 percent of local firms have mature AI use cases, over 90 percent are actively exploring them.
DISRUPTIONS
Of course, we should be wary of these reports — they come from companies with vested interests in selling AI. But even Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic (creators of Claude, the “ethical” rival to ChatGPT), warns of disruption.
“We have a duty to be honest about what is coming,” he says.
He estimates that AI could eliminate 50 percent of entry-level office jobs and raise unemployment by 10–20 percent.
It’s not looking good for graduates. In the US, youth unemployment is up 30 percent since late 2022. In Taiwan, 11.33 percent of 20–24-year-olds are out of work — more than triple the national average.
The “career ladder’s bottom rung” is “breaking,” according to Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn. The AI-bullet train has limited seating. Sadly, the steam train has plenty.
So, what does this mean for education?
KEY SKILLS
That’s the trillion-dollar question. AI tech is moving at bullet-train speed and we can’t predict the future — not even three years ahead. But tech leaders of trillion-dollar companies are pointing to key skills.
Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman says adaptability, self-learning and collaboration are essential. Peter Thiel says “math” people have more to worry about than “word” people, since soft skills are harder to automate. Jensen Huang emphasizes mastering AI tools and prompt technique.
“You can’t just randomly ask [AI] questions… it requires some expertise and artistry.”
That means students need more than basic content knowledge in Chinese, civics, math, science and English. They need transferable skills and AI literacy to amplify them.
But Taiwan’s 2019 “108 Curriculum Guidelines” already highlight core competencies like creativity, communication, problem-solving and democratic values — also known as 21st Century Skills. These also align perfectly with an AI-powered, project-based, interdisciplinary model. Imagine students using ChatGPT to design bilingual presentations, analyze data, simulate debates or create podcasts. This, presumably, is what Huang had in mind when he spoke about using AI to “accelerate thinking.”
But it’s not happening. And it won’t — despite all the AI initiatives, training and subsidies.
STUCK IN THE PAST
Why? Because the exam system dominates everything. The Junior (BCT) and Senior High (GSAT) leaving exams are the coal fueling the steam engine — even though its fire died long ago. The engine is stuck in the industrial age.
Even the authors of the 2019 Guidelines knew this. Their vision was clear: move from content cramming to holistic, flexible, competency-based learning. They wanted portfolios, school-designed curricula and assessments that measure more than memorization. They even added competency questions to the big exams to reflect this.
Yet classrooms remain frozen. Students still cram and regurgitate. Teachers, bound by test prep and parental expectations, have no time or space for experimental activities — let alone meaningful AI integration.
Yes, more teachers are using AI to prep their lessons. But few use it in class. Da-tong Senior High English teacher Tracy Chen puts it plainly: “Time constraints and test prep pressure.” She adds, “We still don’t have a clear roadmap for what AI literacy should look like at each level, or where it fits in the curriculum.”
No surprise. The emergence of generative AI caught everyone off guard. Not even tech companies — let alone education ministries — have a clear roadmap. But even if they did, many Taiwan educators would resist major changes. So would cram schools and publishers who benefit from the current examination system. And the education ministry isn’t exactly charging ahead either. Minister of Education Cheng Young-yiu (鄭英耀) last year said, “We are not reforming the guidelines for the sake of reforming.”
That’s ironic, considering the 2019 Guidelines explicitly call for reform. But talk is cheap. Real transformation demands courage, vision and action. And so far, the education ministry seems unwilling — or unable — to retire the steam engine and build the infrastructure needed for an AI-powered bullet train.
But without assessment reform, nothing else matters. No curriculum — AI or otherwise — will change how schools teach if the BCT and GSAT continue to dominate.
GOOD NEWS
The good news? We don’t need to start from scratch. The 2019 Guidelines already provide a foundation to rethink what students learn, how teachers teach, and how we assess both. We just need to truly reform it — with AI in mind. That means prioritizing projects, student portfolios, personalized learning, and collaboration grounded in ethics and 21st Century skills. And de-prioritizing high stakes exams.
There has never been a better time — or better reason — to retire the examination steam engine. Only when students are taught to use AI as a real partner in daily learning will they develop the skills to thrive in the impending AI-driven workplace.
Until then, we’ll keep trying to arrive at Taiwan’s future with an engine stuck in the station. And the industry AI bullet train? It’ll keep speeding away, leaving more graduates behind.
June 2 to June 8 Taiwan’s woodcutters believe that if they see even one speck of red in their cooked rice, no matter how small, an accident is going to happen. Peng Chin-tian (彭錦田) swears that this has proven to be true at every stop during his decades-long career in the logging industry. Along with mining, timber harvesting was once considered the most dangerous profession in Taiwan. Not only were mishaps common during all stages of processing, it was difficult to transport the injured to get medical treatment. Many died during the arduous journey. Peng recounts some of his accidents in
“Why does Taiwan identity decline?”a group of researchers lead by University of Nevada political scientist Austin Wang (王宏恩) asked in a recent paper. After all, it is not difficult to explain the rise in Taiwanese identity after the early 1990s. But no model predicted its decline during the 2016-2018 period, they say. After testing various alternative explanations, Wang et al argue that the fall-off in Taiwanese identity during that period is related to voter hedging based on the performance of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Since the DPP is perceived as the guardian of Taiwan identity, when it performs well,
A short walk beneath the dense Amazon canopy, the forest abruptly opens up. Fallen logs are rotting, the trees grow sparser and the temperature rises in places sunlight hits the ground. This is what 24 years of severe drought looks like in the world’s largest rainforest. But this patch of degraded forest, about the size of a soccer field, is a scientific experiment. Launched in 2000 by Brazilian and British scientists, Esecaflor — short for “Forest Drought Study Project” in Portuguese — set out to simulate a future in which the changing climate could deplete the Amazon of rainfall. It is
The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on May 18 held a rally in Taichung to mark the anniversary of President William Lai’s (賴清德) inauguration on May 20. The title of the rally could be loosely translated to “May 18 recall fraudulent goods” (518退貨ㄌㄨㄚˋ！). Unlike in English, where the terms are the same, “recall” (退貨) in this context refers to product recalls due to damaged, defective or fraudulent merchandise, not the political recalls (罷免) currently dominating the headlines. I attended the rally to determine if the impression was correct that the TPP under party Chairman Huang Kuo-Chang (黃國昌) had little of a
RSS