Okay. Great. Yeah. Actually, PDIS started as a kind of offshot of Policy Lab with Fang-Rui Zhang joining from Policy Lab UK to Taiwan, the public digital innovation space, in 2016. So, we’re a little bit of a sibling at the time.

While we’re setting up the slides, maybe Rohan or someone from your side can provide a little bit of context?

Okay, great. From the National Institute of Cyber Security. So, Timmy, is the idea for you to do a slide sharing?

I think there’s somebody else joining?

Great. So, in the interest of time, I know that Timmy has some slides available, but we can also just send it to you after the meeting. So, if it helps, I think maybe we would just very quickly delve into the slides for maybe five or seven minutes, just ...

Great. And we heard from the President’s office that next Monday, our new Electronic Digital Act will take effect. So, it’s really good, a major step forward. And we have Timmy, right?

We have made a short presentation. And now we have Wei-zhong Huang and his digital double. We see two of you, Wei-zhong Huang.

Great, and on our side we have Wendy, maybe?

Great, and Prateek?

Great, and then we have Hannah and Prateek.

Okay, good. Well, thank you for your time.

But housing, you know, any small towns mayor can deliberate about housing. And so, it connects to potentially to more CSOs because it’s not just those CSOs in Washington DC doing AI governance work but rather the CSOs in each and every city.

Yeah, and it brings it closer to the mayors, because like information integrity — although a very good topic — it’s almost always a central government problem. And so, it has to be abstract and when it’s actionable, it’s usually on the federal or central government level. Of course, California ...

Maybe in smaller scope but not the yearly theme. The yearly theme is co-created by the youth like every year, so they have different concerns every year obviously.

Yes.

Awesome, awesome. Yeah, and there’s also our existing alignment assembly from the Stanford deliberation in the past ten years of the youth hub, so maybe what we can do is just introduce AI and become community to the use of people.

Yeah, if it’s possible. But you already know Cofacts people, right?

Alright, any more ideas from DN?

Yeah, so our current premier Chen Jian-ren, John Hopkins-trained epidemiologist did say on formal interpellation in the LY that God does talk to him. So, that was part of the LY proceedings. Like everyone is very chill about his catholic beliefs.

In contrast, in Taiwan the more educated or scientific trained you are, the more likely you’re religious, so this is like opposite to the US conversation. And mostly because our religions are really soft…

Yeah. Also, in the US I believe people who are religious are also a bit more DEI diverse, right? So, like the idea of, you know, more inclusivity in the conversations and so on, religiousness is one kind of proxy indication of that.

For example, I can very easily think about integration with Cofacts, that’s another very powerful… And Cofacts is not just Taiwan, it’s also Thailand so it proves that it’s not exceptionalism.

Yeah, so I think we have a clear scope and there’s this like making the toolkit approach even wider in a sense like applying AOI not as new conversations but also to existing or historical conversations. There’s this general willingness to try integration with existing APIs and not just perspectives ...

We can continue this conversations after May 20th.

Imagine like in the Stanford online deliberation, instead of just nudging people who haven’t spoken yet, you give a like reward, a sticker, a badge or something to people who just relates a personal story or adds nuance to the conversation and so on, that’s going to be very powerful, ...

But now, I think jigsaw has been pivoting to actively surface the bridging stuff. And the great thing about having language models that actually parse these attributes is that if you deploy it in a kind of synchronous fashion, it can actually actively steer or nudge conversations.

Yeah, and I think there are like new helps from the ecosystem as well, right? The jigsaw perspectives API was just updated to include bridging attributes, right? So, in a sense, you don’t have to rely on GPT-4 Turbo alone you can also consult the perspectives API I think it’s ...

Of course, it’s partly thanks to the trust environment that Taiwan already enjoys but I would say that over the decade, it also contributed to the radical trust that you are observing now.

And if we did get polarized along party lines back then, I don’t think there will be much radical trust as you observe now. And the fact that we didn’t polarize along the party lines back then, and the fact that for the past ten years, a more… I would ...

But yeah, the some of them, I would say it’s not just a precondition, it was also the result of the decades work. Yeah, because ten years ago, we were at the cusp of very polarized society. And I mean even before the Sunflower movement, there were a lot of ...

Radical trust.

You can take a nap in the park and don’t worry about your belongings.

Please, I’m all ears.

The kind of paradoxical challenge now is that everybody now thinks there’s something about Taiwanese exceptionalism like…

I think what we in the vTaiwan community 10 years ago was doing was a lot of taking the best from Consul, Decidim, Better Reykjavik, from the occupy movement, from Loomio and so on, and try to see whether a combination of these in a toolkit approach, instead of a ...

Which means I can amplify your voice.

Yeah. How can we accelerate that?

And so, I think that in the last 10 years, there’s now this very relaxed attitude. Like, yeah, of course, it’s just, you know, like a higher quality poll is just from it, so that the appetite for deliberation in Taiwan now is not something avant-garde anymore. It’s something that ...

But then we, together with Wendy, also started a radically transparent experiment so that people can see that such consultations, they always result in some signal. Not all of them actionable, maybe half of them. But it never ends with an explosion that destroys the public trust.

Yeah, and also that is partly thanks to Shuyang’s work back in PDIS, right? Because 10 years ago, there was no like generally agreed norm of starting consultations like this and expect it to not break, right? There was a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Like if you start ...

Did I answer your question?

But now, the relevant public is like literally everyone because everyone is online now, right? So, then we can afford to do randomized stratified sampling and not get caught in this informed gap of like a lot of people, half of them don’t know what this means. So, now what ...

So, the upshot is that I think we can now safely assume that this mini public has all used something like Facebook and YouTube now, which is not the case 10 years ago, right? So again, this whole of population sampling was something that Vita did not do because self-selection ...

And so, we have a lot of raw data, actually, as a result of that, which may also be AI analyzed, actually, now that I think of it. But the thing is, though, that it is as rigorous as a regular poll, but far more agency to the public, because ...

And so, it’s like a poll, but it’s also deliberative. It’s facilitated using the Stanford Online Deliberative Poll Platform, which is like a robo-facilitator. And so, the 450 people includes more than 100 media practitioners, like people who are on the first line getting impacted by generative AI insulin. And ...

Thank you. Yeah, one point of example. The AI Evaluation Center, which was under moda’s purview, recently just run an alignment assembly on information integrity. And it forced something, like, between what vTaiwan would traditionally talk about, which is platform governance, but also with everyday people. Because we just sent ...

And so, I think just this, like, what’s the inverse of broadcasting? Broad listening. Whatever. Okay, broad listening. Yeah, change the nature of this recursive public. The mediators were no longer there. They were no longer one way only. The mediators were just broadcasting, essentially. And it depended on the ...

Back then, it was almost impossible without a lot of volunteers to consciously make this bridge. We can’t just go and interview a random mini public of people on marriage equality and expect them… their ideas to be accurately represented online. There was no such technology. It would be so ...

It doesn’t sound right. And so, it didn’t feel right. That was that the main thing. And I think with the advent of technologies such as GPT-4 Turbo, Claude 3 Opus, Llama 3, TAIDE, and so on, now this is being bridged, so that the stakeholder groups no longer need ...

And the reason why is that not many of them are online, right? The people who are highly religious and was not so pro marriage equality. They don’t feel very comfortable if we say, you know, come to this Taiwan platform or that we’re going to, you know, just interview ...