-
How do you envision that your anarchical political view, or more realistically speaking, open government project get carried out in a place of low political participation/ awareness by the people like in Taiwan? Most anarchists, such as Noam Chomsky, only see anarchist ideas as far as political movement but not ultimate form of politics.
-
I think ultimately people will reject a world manipulated by A.I. Although we desire a perfect and utopian life from time to time, one thing is for sure: most people will eventually want to live a real life. A real life consists of unexpected things, some surprises, some sadness and disappointment. Only a machine can live a life that doesn’t have ups and downs. If all our lives are predictable and manageable, then life is no longer worthy of living. Why will one live until 80 or 90 when he/she already knows what life will be like when they are 6 year old? A real life is worthy of living for because it is not perfect and it is real. Therefore, what is disappointing to people is, however, real and meaningful.
-
I don’t think philosopher will be replaced by A.I. In fact, I don’t think there should be a profession called philosopher. Philosophy to me is an attitude of life and a way of thinking. It is an activity, not a doctrine of science. Everyone can do the thinking so why can one be called philosopher while others can’t? A.I. can, in terms of work and labour, replace sociologist, economist, political scientist, physicist, chemist, even computer programmer but not any person in the field of arts and humanity. This is because A.I. doesn’t have soul. They operate according to large number of data and programming instructions. For example. I don’t think AlphaGo beat the best Go player in the world. AlphaGo doesn’t know what Go is or what it means. Meaning of work is important to labour. Therefore, 李世乭 and 柯潔 only lost in terms of a meaningless activity. I don’t think AlphaGo can explain itself to the public why it is making this move and what conditions and outcomes it has assumed and considered when making this move.
-
When I said perhaps there will be a last human struggle against A.I. in the end, you said you are not so sure about it since you have cats and dogs and they don’t seem to want to fight against human beings. I think this is simply because we are a lot different from them. We have memory and history of cultures and we act according to our habits, history, and memory. We can speak and turn babbling into a system of spoken/ written language while no other animals can; most of them only act according to its current mood. Although some apes manage to learn human communication language or some modified language, they cannot produce identical one of their own in natural wild. Last but not least, their topics of language are mostly limited. Bees communicate about foods but not jokes and prairie dog talks about predator but not whether they in fact exist or not. We will know in the end what life is real, not only according to our consciousness, which can be manipulated by A.I. but also our history and communication, which cannot be replaced by A.I.
-
The values (
transparency / 
participation / 
accountability / 
inclusion) are performed, not predetermined, so the day-to-day work involves organizing regular gatherings toward binding consultations — on Digital Economy related regulations, Social Enterprise policies, e-Petitions, Youth Council, Civil Servant participation, etc. -
Understood and agreed. My observation was that the up-and-downs, in a gamified environment, can be simulated/stimulated. It is important to understand the mechanism, if you would like foster a more balanced (
social / 
economic / 
governance / 
environmental) relationship. -
This is a solid qualia-based argument. I made a similar argument based on human embodiment of lived experience.
-
Instead of “it cannot be replaced”, let’s say “we would like to not see it replaced”, for human history and communication has already completely replaced e.g. the Neanderthals culture.