The ChatGPT artificial intelligence (AI) tool unveiled by OpenAI in November last year has kicked up a flurry of interest around the world, and Taiwan is no exception.
Such tools are likely to change many aspects of people’s lives, from the workplace and healthcare to home living. The question is, do they bring more good than bad to people, or vice versa?
AI refers to the ability of a computer to mimic the capabilities of the human mind, including learning and perceiving, as well as solving problems and comprehending natural languages. It entails the potential of computers to perform the same tasks as humans, or even outperform human intelligence, backed by technological improvements and enhancements in data analytics.
Even as early as a few years ago, there were no signs when the “AI era” would start in earnest, but today ChatGPT makes AI truly tangible for everyone for the first time. While the likes of ChatGPT are not yet perfect, what matters is the progress and direction of human-like machine intelligence development. Indeed, OpenAI’s speech and text-based chatbot is attracting huge interest from various industries, with firms rushing to integrate the technology into their products, including those in the financial industry.
AI technology can help the financial industry in many areas, including customer service, marketing, automation, investment advice, fraud detection and risk management.
However, it could also help criminals pose greater threats to financial institutions, including through data leaks and privacy breaches, the Financial Supervisory Commission said last week. The regulator asked local banks and financial service providers to closely monitor their use of AI tools to ensure data security. It told lawmakers on the legislature’s Finance Committee that it plans to issue guidelines for the responsible use of AI by local financial institutions in August at the earliest.
After Singapore last year set up “fairness, ethics, accountability and transparency” principles for the use of AI in its financial industry, the commission said it would also establish principles for local financial institutions to follow. That is, if financial institutions want to adopt AI tools in their business operations, they must have the capacity to control the technology and determine the level of tolerable risk. They would also be held accountable for any mishaps.
The Securities and Futures Bureau has proposed tighter supervision of AI-powered investment consulting services offered by local securities companies, after excitement over so-called robo-advisers fueled a surge in business over the past year: The number of clients grew 17 percent annually to 167,000 in the first quarter of this year, while assets managed by robo-advisory programs rose 42 percent year-on-year to NT$6.9 billion (US$225.33 million).
The commission seems to have no intention of drafting special legislation to regulate the use of AI in the financial sector for the time being. Instead, it is focusing on establishing a self-regulating mechanism for service providers that enables financial institutions to monitor their own legal, ethical and security standards.
Even though the commission has adopted a hands-off approach on this issue, it should still guide financial institutions in establishing robust protection mechanisms against possible harm from the use of AI. In the meantime, it must consider whether it would eventually take the reins to keep up with international trends and the financial industry’s demands.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS