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.
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