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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS