Three or four years ago when Taiwan was working on big data and so on, the state of the art was still that you needed volumes of tagged data for supervised learning, and things like that. You need a lot of data format in the same way, and maybe...

That’s also what we are trying to develop, and of course, any help will be very appreciated.

It’s too much data, and the error rate, even 0.3 percent or something, is very significant from machine view point. If you spot check, it’s not going to be spot checked.

Those decisions, you can’t build this on human alone now, because of the sheer diversity and the volume of the data.

Now, they are faced with very diverse biometric data that also needs machine learning to be even able to regulate well. Not to tell whether this should go out of sandbox to be one of the original sellers, or to graduate but failing one or two criteria, so they have ...

The flip side of this is, of course, what we call regulatory technology. The regulators who used to outperform machines in telling one bad actor over a good actor, or whatever, inside the sandbox.

The error correction example that you just mentioned, I think this year is the year where machines reliably does this better than humans. It used to be a unique, best actor to be sure, but now... [laughs]

In this lining experience as like this, I think this is one of the fundamental parts that I do agree.

Also, branching in on PayPal actually underlines a lot of inquisitive trust in the flow of commerce, because to pay for any service without even clicking, without even doing anything. Essentially, it’s line of trust.

Just four months ago, I was still working with the Siri team. I was looking for this. [laughs] It really took a lot of development effort. Precisely as you said, this year is the year where people will take it for granted. I really do agree with everything you said.

Exactly, yeah.

Because Taiwan has this kind of legal system, Asia SV can only do what the law authorizes it does. For sandbox to happen we need LY to pass something that authorizes this experimentation...

It is related, because it falls into deregulation, and also falls into the experimentation. It’s conceivable that a fintech experiment sandbox is not only limited by numbers of members or by the number of money but also regionally. It’s conceivably part of Asia SV.

Yeah, the sandbox thing.

I think, there’s the preview. [laughs]

I think, this is still in the works. It’s not ready, which is why I was not showing it.

But, I think, the translation has some shortcomings.

In ASVDA?

Biotech may have its own ASVDA-like formulation. This is apparently trend-setting. If this extends, then we can have the medical or the bio sciences you said, and things like that, the green tech or whatever to follow this. For the medical and for bio things like that they’re also designing ...

That’s great. What I have said before was that during the planning stage — especially for ASVDA — what we, as ministers without portfolio, do is just to make sure they don’t conflict or clash with other important development programs. We have minimal input as of specifics like who do ...

They went there, they write for the next year’s yearly budget which is due August or something. They know what alignment means. That’s, I think, the super important thing. That’s what the overseer office does. They produce the recommendations and vital alignments, but also shifts people both ways so that ...

The first year is about a cultural dissemination osmosis, if you would, [laughs] to take all the ministers and deputy ministers relevant to this project, and have them spend a lot of time with these C‑level people in ASVDA to understand this picture ‑‑ to just have a global picture. ...

Yes, right. A lot of these C‑level people in the ASVDA came from the Silicon Valley. They were senior Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, researchers, scientists, or investors in the SV area.

On the next budget cycle, it will then create new ministerial projects that didn’t exist but is necessary for this vision to happen. As well as advice the administration to maybe cut some budgets for the things that clearly doesn’t align. That’s going to be their project. They always say ...

I think, this is pretty comprehensive obviously. For the first year, this planning center the ASVDA is on the planning stage. What it does is that it looks at automated streaks at all the regional governments, and find which existing projects align with these visions.

Finally, this is the regional part which is the demo, or the initial deregulation zone of these new autonomous speakers and things like these. As you can see, it still has the original thorium graphics on the right which is for regions and for logistics ‑‑ small logistics and smart ...

Right. This is basically the outline of everything that they promised to do. It has four parts. It’s about a start of ecosystem. It’s about Innovative R&D Center that connects to Silicon Valley and with a national investment company that gets the things brought in. This is about field-testing IoT.

Right. They were there ASVDA. Is it OK in Chinese?

Sure. It’s all on the website. It’s in the ASV Development Agency. Have you seen the website?

Essentially, if a cabinet or a government, being city or national level, it’s explicitly part of their campaign. They do this in a very integrated way. Otherwise, they tend do it with piece meal ‑‑ politically speaking. In Taiwan, President Tsai did make or the government part of her presidential ...

They’re now even entertaining the idea of voting for per se paper budgets using ATM, using automatic teller machines, so that even in rural areas people who can’t connect to their website, they could do this ATM stuff.

Because that was their promise to do policymaking this way. Then, in individual cities like in Madrid or in Barcelona, they also do this very well because they also spread the budget‑making power, participatory budgeting, to ordinary citizens and in nearby countries in Uruguay and Portugal.

Yeah, sure. We still look up to, like Iceland. Iceland is actually doing the much larger scale with the Pirate Party.

[laughs] Yeah. That’s what we’re working very hard, to make it happen.

Exactly. A ministry would answer for the one third which is their scope, but the other two third they have to ask somebody else. But to the proposer and the 5,000 people, because they imagine the administration as one...

We are now making this the norm and the waiting for 60 days the exception. That’s my work.

At least the transcript is made public and then on the 15 days, they release the infographics to explain the issue to general public. Then at 45 days, they had the initial statement and things like these. It’s every two weeks and on the third day, they announce the timetable, ...

But for some other ministries, The Ministry of Health and Welfare, there’s a initial kickoff meeting about seven days after the proposal went through to make sure we know what the petition is asking for, and then a lot of kick‑off meetings but internally. There was outside experts and those ...

That’s before I went into a cabinet. I’ve been facilitating this kind of petition responses so that from now there will be much more substantial dialogue during the 60‑day period. In the MOTC case, the proposal waited for 60 days and then got some response but no communication between the ...

It’s not something that MOTC can just say yes. MOTC says, "OK, this is what we have so far. The data you ask, we do have the data you ask. But if you ask about the production of such data, we can’t just decide ourselves that are there further negotiations ...

MOTC, I think, answer very eloquently but because the ask is so large, it’s actually more than what MOTC can handle. It fundamentally changes how the ministry has handled international negotiations. It’s asking for radical transparency on that.

That scope is much larger than the vTaiwan way. The vTaiwan just want to talk about the taxation, the insurance and the registration of UberX drivers. Nothing more nothing less. But the petition is asking for much more. It asks for a completely transparent process, do announcement and open negotiations. ...

Not by the government. The petition was always started by a citizen, @nchild, who writes a lot of articles about sharing economy. You probably have heard of him, yeah?

But just the UberX case. But there’s a broader petition that says not just for UberX but for sharing economy in general.

Yeah, sure. You see, for the Uber case, there’s actually two different cases. One is ministry initiated by the Ministry of Transport on the Taiwan who wants to talk about the Uber...

The system needs some tweaking for it to work, but it will use the same website, but perhaps, when you get into their direction has this, "OK if you want to petition through your MPs, then click this," and then it would take you to LY, then join or something. ...

In other parts of the world, it makes more sense for the MPs to take petitions because they translate to votes easy. [laughs] In any case, the MPs wants to regulate petitions. They have a different threshold. For administrative branch, we have 5,000. For legislative tier, I think they’re settling ...

The original plan was that they would take the petition part first because it makes more sense. In UK, it actually started in the legislative and then gradually roll into city governments and administrative branch. It’s actually pretty peculiar in US that the administrative takes petitions before the legislative does.

We’ve been talking with the legislative for well over a year now.

Then it’s also a We the People petition platform, and now it’s also accountability platform for those presidential campaign‑promised spendings. It’s like three different US websites where I need to watch. That’s like the entry point for the open governance website at the moment.