And in general, you can frame the breadth of diversity as a time saver because frankly, it takes time to talk to that many people. And if you have technology that lets you reach an order of magnitude more people at the same cost, then the career public service is ...

But in general, you can say that if you move from a scalar to a vector to structured input, you generally reduce risk because then what you get is more nuance. And when you have more nuance, it’s far harder for things to blow up after the fact when people ...

Yeah, I think it’s two things, right? It’s time saver and it’s a risk reducer. And these two may not be true at the same time, right? During the pandemic, we’ve seen lots of trade-offs of these two.

If you go back to 2014, 15, 16, 17 in our collaborative meetings, our participation offices, you will know that every consultation looks like the one month before it, except with one slight methodological change. And so, 10 years later, we reach this point.

Usually, when you improve both at the same time, it becomes brittle. It becomes fragile. People don’t have a reference model of it. And so, you probably run into this minstrel blank stare, like what you were talking about. But if you’re phrasing your improvements as just improving on one ...

And now, we’re using augmented deliberation that’s like a conversation, which is natural language and so on, as in a frontier. And each technological improvement that we do, language models, immersive shared reality, real-time translation across cultures and so on, moves these points to the up and right a little ...

If you can click it, it’s from the book Five Zero. So, if you open that link, it shows the idea of plurality or interoperable coexistence, not as a trade-off between the two sides. So, it’s like more depth or more scale. But rather, you can fold it into two ...

Anyway, but to answer really, really briefly, I think there’s a frontier here that’s like the Pareto frontier or the frontier for productivity. The degree of collaboration and the breadth of diversity, which used to be framed as trade-offs, maybe are no longer that trade-off-ish as we may think it. ...

I just wrote a book about it. So, it’s a plurality book. If you check out part five, you can begin reading at part five, Collaborative Technology and Democracy. It outlines the future as we see it. And I think Amazon will start selling it on May 20.

Yeah. Prateek?

So, I would say, of course, there’s some digital gap to be considered. But because Taiwan is, I think, the country with the fastest internet speed for any country over 10 million population, and we have broadband as a human right for a flat fee, you can have unlimited broadband ...

And also, I would argue that for many people, receiving SMS from the state and using the same phone to participate in this video conference is easy enough. They don’t need helpers. They don’t need people to help setting it up. In fact, we do have elderly people and so ...

I think for this particular one, info integrity, the relevant public are people who are online. And because we have an internet penetration rate of easily like in the high 90s for people in this age bracket, I mean, if you’re consulting for very senior people’s rights for people 80 ...

And fortunately, the ADI, the Administration for Digital Industries under moda also has some projects working on this automated or at least remote-controlled sign language interpretation. So, it’s really, really important. And I think that’s the key. We have to take, I think the language interpretation and multilingual interpretation. I ...

So, at this stage, then mini public has the, like it has two good things going for it. First, it’s really inexpensive. It’s a really good tool to set up now with the streamline process. And second, it’s far harder to have explosions when you do things online. But of ...

Yeah, so I think when we need new ones, when the scoping is more on the discovery and a little bit of defined side, we tend to use face-to-face and not necessarily with mini-publics, because at some points, it may actually help to have a rolling stakeholder discovery process instead ...

And going forward, I think the latest crop of generative models, we can do some side-by-side testing and so on vs human summarizers. I think they’re generally at a good point so that if we don’t like how they’re summarizing, we can also fine-tune it because specifically, the larger LLaMA ...

Talk to the City remains experimental, right? So, it’s an addition to the methodology. In fact, we did not use Talk to the City this time when drafting the Anti-fraud Act. We plan to use it as a kind of supplemental information, so that people can go back to the ...

And so, because we kept at it, then the ministries eventually, after like five years or six years, discovered that, oh, there’s no way it will explode when you set topics such as this. Hope that answers your question.

And the second answer is that we made sure that we tackle the issues in a way that doesn’t result in explosion. So, at the very same time, in Taiwan, we had a lot of very explosive topics like marriage equality and so on that went all the way to ...

So, it is always built as a time-saving tool which also scores points with we carry a public service. So, this is the first answer. It’s a time-saving tool to address something that has urgency anyway, that is set by the civil society or the people in general. First answer.

So, because there is a ministerial duty to answer these petitions anyway, Polis is then set as a kind of signal-through-noise tool. I wouldn’t say noise cancellation, but it’s at least a kind of catalyst tool because nobody has the time to read through the 5,000 petitions. It’s impossible. But ...

But it wasn’t the case in 2014, 2015. I think we did two things right back at the time. First, I think we let the civil society choose which topics are important to them. So, a little bit like Ideathon this time. We explicitly asked the people, what kind of ...

Yeah. Well, not many can answer that because that’s a 2016 or 2015 year question. I mean, now people just see, oh, moda doing a assembly, of course, that’s like a poll, right? It’s like a Google form, right? So, I mean, it’s just now so part of the culture ...

I see a hand from Conor.

For this particular one, because there was a lot of legislative inquiry, interpellation and so on about, you know, whether people actually trust mmoda to hold Facebook or made our TikTok account, whether that we’re effective against fraud and whether these measures are backed by citizens and so on. I ...

Okay, so we have run literally hundreds of citizen participations, and there’s really two metrics that we care, right? First, does the career public service, the people who are actually in the government as a job, right, whether they feel that is virtually risk-free and they’re willing to do this ...

I see your hand up, Prateek.

And so, I think it serves two purposes. One is that for the existing guidelines, which is very abstract like the EU AI ACT, it’s quite abstract actually, when it mentions things that can be operationalized like integrity or accuracy or harm or privacy or whatever, this is like an ...

Oh, yeah. Yes, correct. So, the idea here is societal evaluation, right? So, what’s accurate for the researchers may not be what’s accurate for the people. And so, we really want to hear from the people like what do they consider as accurate what these words even mean uh for ...

I’m sorry, I didn’t get the last part.

And in fact, working with CIP, we held the zeroth alignment assembly just on the margins of the summit for democracy. So, what’s really interesting is that the leaders, the delegates and so on to the summit for democracy by in large agreed that we need to focus on information ...

Yeah. I think Polis works if there is a need for clarity from all stakeholders, that is to say, the dimension is so large that we cannot pre-map them all. So, it works really the best on the beginning of the discovery stage of the double diamond. And that was ...

Hope that answers your question.

conversation. It’s just that it’s much more like a checkmark, checkmark thing. Like Meta, can you do it? Microsoft, can you do it? Microsoft says, no. OpenAI says, we can do it. OpenAI can do it. And OpenAI says, well, OK, we can do it, right, because it’s multisig-hugger. So, ...

So, in a sense, we still retain the vTaiwan process spirit of getting a multisig-hugger

Indeed, it was one of the main harms that was surfaced by the previous round, the Ideathon round. So, this, for this one, I think it’s a good idea to have a little bit of a look at the process. And then for this round, we’re much more in the ...

Now, for this particular one, for the info integrity one, I would argue that the legislatorsalready know all the nuances about being impersonated for fraud, scam and everything because they’re also celebrities. And so, they, for this particular threat model, that is to say deep fake fraud and advertisements that ...

And simultaneously, Anthropic is doing the same thing in the US and the Cluade3 Opus training showed that for disability rights, I bet that none of the original drafts of the Anthropic Constitution were alternative-abled. So, that wasn’t found in the last constitution, but that’s one of the things that’s ...

And of course, it did lead to many more networking, hallway tracks and so on that is typical of a face-to-face deliberation. And the depth of career recommendations really helped because we used that to co-create a constitutional document to help align our sovereign model, taide.tw. So, we taught AI ...

Yeah, that’s a great question. So, we had a more open-ended, more like the discovered part of Double Diamond, actually in 2023, when we first started Alignment Assemblies, that’s a more traditional vTaiwan process of a POLIS for agenda setting and two workshops, one in Tainan and one in Taipei ...

And we’re also working with AI Objectives Institute on a tool called Talk to the City that can then take this entire transcript and everything and using large language models to automatically identify clusters of opinions, division points, as well as potential bridging statements. And again, entirely automatic. It used ...

And the during part, so we tried all sorts of deliberation methods, but this time, Ithink it’s the first time that it is really scale-free in a sense of an AI facilitating room of 10 people at a time. And the beauty of it is that it’s because it’s real-time ...

Yes. I think so using kind of a taxonomy by our good friends at DemNext, the before, the during, the after are equally important. And we have improved over the past decade on all the three parts. The before part, which is helped by… There’s a slide that talks about ...

Oh, and finally, as I mentioned this morning, the three major suggestions made it into the Anti-Fraud Act draft. So, it’s in the parliament now. So, that’s also one of the shortest time turnaround. When we did 10 years ago, the Uber, it took months before the assembly result actually ...

And second, as you just saw, those 10-people groups are not led by human facilitators, but rather by AI interface. So in the past, we were often limited by factors such as the venue or the number of facilitators. But this time is truly like broad listening, not broadcasting, broad ...

First, I think the mini public, the 450 citizens who did participate, are statistically representative, meaning that legislators and fellow ministers have a certain confidence that this deliberative result is reflecting the composition of the entire population. And so, when 85% of people agree, we know that people are behind ...

Well, thank you. I just have two points to add.

Yes. You can click in… that’s a hyperlink on the bottom of your screen.

So, yes. Are the slides ready or can we have a short presentation?