 So hello world. Are we on? We're on. Okay, that's great. I'm very happy to be virtually here and I'm very happy to see that there's quite a few slides of questions already but also feel free to I don't know grab a microphone or something and ask me synchronous questions. So the first question interestingly is what do I like and dislike about github? I think github is great. I've been a github user I think since this first year and just today actually I saw github on a government kind of human right watch because of a github repository called 996.icu. 996 refers to the fact that many people working in IT or engineering positions in that the PRC are organizing a kind of social movement to kind of complain about the regulated or kind of industry regulated working condition that is 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and 6 days per week and it's very interesting how github has been home to many of such networked organizations to to just start grassroots movements at this point there's I think almost 200,000 stars and 14,000 forks and so on and so this really is grassroots so I think it's it's what I like github most it's anyone can start a decentralized social movement powered by github page and the github's decentralized storage. I don't have any gripes about github right now when I used to work with Apple we also use github enterprise I remember at the time github was still kind of adjusting from being a public-facing public repository mostly you know framework for development and slowly migrating to enterprise but I think github is getting this balance pretty good right now and now with Microsoft help I wish github all the best in developing a nuanced and balanced governance model that takes into account both the needs of decentralized and multi-centralized organizations as well as traditional enterprises. Two people would like to know artificial super intelligence is arguably the greatest existential risk our species has ever faced what safety measures do you think can be implemented. I visited open AI folks I think a year or so ago while they're still working on the open-air charter. I think charter of course is a very good starting point but what is even more important is just to get anybody who can get their hands on AI which is pretty much anyone nowadays some basic safety and bias and ethics understanding some of them is like really trivial but if you point them out early on they tend to be ingrained into their thinking. I often make a analogy to fire right you know fire was also one of the greatest existential risk our species ever discovered it has burned entire cities and it has caused catastrophes but a way that the society adapts with fire is not to to ban the use of fire or to restrict the use of fire to priests or people of a certain class but rather to to start teaching cooking as early as possible and with all the responsibility and all the dangerous precautions and so on centered around cooking and indeed making cooking part of our culture and making sure that anyone can cook have access to fire but also with all the traditions and cultures and precautions and I think democratizing AI at this point democratizing the conversations about deep learning and other technologies I think is our best bet in making sure that there's no you know isolated random person just getting hold on artificial super intelligence and do something that runs contrary to the ethics and that is why we have the social innovation lab we have the self-driving tricycles we have the co-regulated norms and so on that weaves this AI into the society's fabric instead of the other way around if we get into the habit of the other way around that is to say adapting the society to fit the random new AI technology then we walk the path of our existential threat of having the artificial super intelligence kind of dictates the social life and the norms one person want me to tell about Bitcoin story there's not much story to tell I'm not Satoshi and what I did was I think around Bitcoin was not even 100 USD I started experimenting to tell all my clients that was really early that I'm charging one Bitcoin per hour I think when I would start working with Apple that's 2011 or so Bitcoin is at 200 and then gradually it is beginning to rise but all of my clients that my hey our accounting system is not yet set up to accommodate pre-cryptocurrency and so we had to convert to Piat whatever the running price of Bitcoin is so I never actually received Bitcoin you see but I have a kind of growing consultation rate around that period of time and I think what I did was mostly raising the awareness that there is a valid and visible and legitimate really paying way to accommodate for you know transactions across different jurisdiction and someone which again is still Bitcoin's main value at the moment and so there's not much story there's just a very very early adopter and trying to lend some legitimacy to this crypto invention three people would like to know do I believe crypto is going to stay for a long run or is the volatile nature of it ultimately going to kill this is the currency well first of all I usually say distributed technology or DLT in Taiwan we're seeing DLT is being used a lot of different ways to from tracking you know giving accountability to crowdfunded projects that works across jurisdictions to ensuring that the contract and migrant workers site before they leave their home country is the same contract that they receive when they land to Taiwan or the citizens initiated air quality measurement devices cannot be you know changed in its numbers when processed by our national supercomputing center and so on and so forth and so as a trust machine I think it's already proven it's worth in getting everybody agree on a common ledger whether it works as a currency or on or not depending on how you know tolerable you are to the current crypto systems limitations I have many good friends working on you know making those limitations go away or at least substantially reducing the limitations so I think we're too early to tell any particular technology is going to to you know serve as a currency or not we're more like in still in the you know our key days of protocol rather than the HTTPS days of protocol so it will still take a few years to further market and the society to to adapt DLT to various currencies I think we can start with the what we call home for a good exchange the exchange of socially recognized goods like time bank and so on that are not directly competing with the already very well you know develop systems like or like this our master card but rather to get into the places where people don't usually track their time bank credits and things like that so there's some intermediate forms of currency just above distributed ledger technology purely for accountability but not yet everyday payments currency that's my take on this question two people would like to know do I consider the idea of a government regulated social credit and advancement of technology in the public sphere or rather a tool of censorship and control to which my answer is yes it's both an advancement of technology in the public sphere and a tool of censorship and control I mean these two sounds like you know one is a good thing one is a bad thing but they're actually just you know orthogonal right you can grow a technology while at a same time limits access and control and governance to the technology to basically exclude large swaths of people just by nature of keeping the you know back end of this technology a proprietary and closed and and rather secret and protected by law I mean we've seen many technologies going through this I would say a lure or this kind of shape before democratizing or open source or released to the public and for the public to govern and so yeah I don't expect that all the social credit system will eventually get decentralized the same way that Bitcoin or Ethereum has but I think some way to ascertain its legitimacy is critical at some point if the social credit system builds purely on coercive power then the legitimacy is rather low and people will see for what it is it is just another command and control system or coercion and control system and so for such technologies to truly grow I think some sort of decentralized governance is is very much needed and that's actually when Vitalik this is my one I think three years ago now we talked about the first factor of Ethereum the dial forward and so on and I came up with this analogy it's like dial forward is like the climate change of Ethereum that forces Vitalik to think about governance and about the legitimacy theory beyond his own kind of benevolent dictator control and so any technology that has such a social dimension need to go through such a you know regulatory or governance change he eventually would work with one while to come up with quadratic voting as one way to you know walk out of the minefield that is you know this bothersome versus direct democracy and I think QV is one of the very interesting projects that has the potential to let people to have decentralized control and that is also the voting system we're using in the presidential hackathon this year. Two people would like to know what's my best advice for a college student my advice is I think just a line of poem is from Leona Cohen it says there is a crack in everything and that is how the light gets in. What I mean by this is that it's very easy for college students to see the world with a pair of new eyes and see all the social injustices all the uncertainties and all the non-democratic places in the world but those cracks are actually let it not be a way to just pull you in but rather let it be a gap to for you to identify but for the light to come all across the world because the great promise of the internet in general but github in particular is that whatever you're the thing you care about there's thousands of people caring about it the same thing across the world and so learn to organize and to identify the social injustice or uncertainty or non-democratic governance spots and then organize around it and increase the best factor as my advice. Two people would like to know some people consider hackathons promotional events of binge coding with no real impact do I think there is a value in attending and organizing hackathons so the presidential hackathon is not just one hackathon it is rather a series of hackathons we have like five hackathons distributed over three months and precisely to work on the continuity problem of hackathons because as you can see the price of our presidential hackathon is our presidential guarantee that the five winning teams will get their ideas implemented in our Taiwan's public service in the next nine months after three months of co-creation and so in a sense that price is social impact and the real work actually begins right after the hackathon and people who don't even win the hackathon can still join the five winning teams in making sure that the visions the five teams outlined in their presidential hackathon end up being the everyday reality so far were five out of five all the five winning ideas of the last year now has become reality and so I think just like any crowdsourcing or participatory event the accountability like what happens after the hackathon is even more important than the transparency or participatory nature of it so having some kind of way to bind the hackathons results into measurable or at least qualitatively measurable outcomes I think is very important the more binding power the more accountable this part is I think that the more value is in the hackathon of course there's still the you know the HR value in getting you know people of like-minded nature and share a problem together and so on I think that part is for sure but I think for the organizers I would suggest to look into large-scale hackathons like the Vatican hackathon or the presidential hackathon of Taiwan and so I figure out a way to bind the results into measurable outcomes six people would like to know Silicon Valley one of the most richest place on this cannot solve homeland homelessness problem what do I think will be an ideal solution to solve Silicon Valley's homelessness problem I don't comment on things that I don't personally know but I think a really good starting point is to as we say empower people closest to the suffering meaning that if it is possible to understand the homelessness problem from the angle of the social workers of the people who are homeless themselves instead of a top-down way a top-down planning way to do more ethnographic research to do more co-creation events with the people themselves I think that will give a much more clear picture of what exactly is needed for interventions and sometimes the solution takes decades while one of the you know weakness in representational democracy is that people would often want to focus on things that will you know take effect in two years or in four years and so some non-governmental like long-running social enterprise or NGO or whatever is critical because it will live throughout the many representational councils and so on and be able to turn to out a 10-year or 20-year journey that can collectively realize the solution of homelessness problems and so that again I think is why SDGs is timed at a horizon of around 2030 is that we don't over focus on short-term low-hanging fruits but rather to plan together on getting the economic and the social and environmental part of any given problem in the 10-year or so planning horizon for years for people is very interesting about the presidential hackathon how could I get government agreement and how long did it take? Truth to be told a smaller scale like municipal hackathon of this kind of three-month co-creation has already been piloted I think around 2016 by the D4SG the data for social group group in the Pacific City as well as in New Pacific City and so I think some kind of what we call devolution to making sure that each city has the budgets the funding the citywide regulatory support for this kind of events is paramount because then at a presidential stage we can just look at what has obviously worked and what has fostered you know cross sectoral interaction and basically having the cities or the regions as the pilot slides that we can then amplify this model and so it really didn't take much convincing because everybody who has any knowledge of the D4SG pilots or the got zero grants and so on can see that it's obviously successes and so when we merge the got zero grants on one side and the D4SG pilot program the data hero program on the other side into the presidential hackathon asking the people who have been running the two shows as mentors and steering committee people generally say oh yeah obviously it will work because it has worked and so just having some sandboxes I think is very important in proving the ideas because everybody would then have a smaller scale of firsthand experiences of your new social innovation. Two people would like to know technology can go in both the directions of centralization decentralization both of which have their pros and cons which would I see rather see as more common so it's interesting that we're now anthropomorphizing technology as if it's a human being as if it can go in directions but actually technology is just a vehicle upon which that human societies move in our directions sometimes literally so I think what we need to look at is not one particular technology like the web of course the web has been you know decentralized decentralized, derecentralized, re-decentralized and so on for many different iterations now but I think what we need to pay attention is the people who are web developers, people who develop browsers, people who develop service, people who develop web applications, people who build on the web platform, what are their what we call regulative ideas what are their internal metaphors about the web I think that is what we need to pay attention to if people generally feel that the web brings people together brings ideas together in a way that respects their autonomy their what we call data agency their or data collaboratives if we see ourselves as steelworks not controllers of data that the words matter then even if we use centralized technologies we can deploy it in a way that guarantees autonomy and transparency and accountability while on the other hand any decentralized technology have the potential just like you know distributed ledger it can very easily be reshaped into a you know just centralized control layer if the people are designing the system decide that they should hoard the power and use the metaphors that are corresponding to such a worldview and so I think regulative ideas really matter and the ways that we use matters and which is why I make sure to always use you know like the prayer that the internet the beings data collaboratives and things like that I think people can move and people's mind can move technology only in views where our minds moves for people would like to see me sharing a interesting side project that I'm working on this is a great question so I've been working on the more add dictionary that is the MOE dictionary as my side project kind of very long-running side project for many many years now since 2013 it's called more addict and the MOE dictionary is significant because Taiwan is of many cultural heritage is we have of course the indigenous languages such as Amis and the Adaya and so on there's 16 different languages we have the Taiwanese holo Taiwanese Akka Taiwanese Mandarin and many other languages of course we also have a sizable expat and also new migrants which all bring their own culture and languages and Moedic strives to be a general purpose learning tool for people who you know our second language learners here or for people who are of around seven years old to nine years old to get into the habit of checking into each other's cultures and learning the common roots for example the common Austronesian roots of the Taiwanese indigenous languages or the common roots of the Taiwanese holo Akka Mandarin languages and so instead of on different websites we design integrated experience where people can easily share the calligraphy and things like that all three films and so on on social media to get into the habits of co-creating the dictionary Moedic has many spawn projects like the Idaqi project which is basically urban dictionary for Taiwanese holo and many people can bring new terms like the pokemons and so on and get a crowdsource translation for it into the Idaqi into Taiwanese holo and basically keeping the language up to date to the latest terminologies and so on and build language circles around it so that's my favorite side project it's completely under creative common zero that is to say public domain and we are very happy to see many language communities just forking it and supporting the indigenous language movements and so on three people would like to know and I think that may be the last question because we have two minutes left if I'm designing a AI to replace myself what would be the most difficult part well I I don't have a self truth to be told I have a base kind of horizon I fall into sleep every night completing replying to all the males zeroing the inbox and making sure that the pomodoro you know ideas are met and all the remaining transcripts or whatever can be published I pushed them to github which is then automatically published to RP this website and so I make sure that all the artifacts that I create during the day is pushed out around the night so I can fall asleep with a kind of no legacy code and wake up deciding that it may be time to do something to be doing something creative instead of being her hostage by myself of yesterday and so if I'm to this line and I think one of the most important thing is to make sure that it's not beholden to the utility functions that it had before any given time point that it had a clearly remarked maybe they or weak to reorganize itself to reinvent itself and to have a way to just talk across the world to instead of treating people values like instrumental values treat them like the the social values they are and co-create the common values and the sustainable development goals is a very good anchor to doubt and to work gradually towards the common goals rather than the common direction because the common direction just like any bias can lose this relevance over time but the commonly shared goals the common goals given our different positions I think is one of the what we call coherent blended volition that can guide human intelligence and AI together into what we call extended or augmented collective intelligence or you know ACI and so I think that's the entirety of my talk and we're hitting the allocated time so thank you for so much for joining me and for the great questions thank you so much thank you