Transcript of trilogy interview

WIP

Based on the sources provided, this is a chronological summary of who is having what conversation. This conversation includes Nishio, Glenn, Audrey, Seki, and Alex. The conversation was primarily aimed at putting the concept of plurality into the Japanese context, specifically delving into three areas of plurality: the public sector, the private sector, and the individual.

The conversation begins with greetings from Mr. Nishio and confirmation of the theme of this year's meeting. He also noted that "it is very important to put plurality into the Japanese context," and thanked Mr. Seki for his participation.

Nishio indicated that, given that the participants are from different countries, he intends to ask them in turn why they think plurality is necessary and what is lacking in today's reality, based on their own experiences and sensitivities.

Audrey states that the book's work for her stems from starting the g0v (gab zero) community around 2012. He explains that it began as a new way to view public opinion and anger about the inadequacy of government digital services as a force for collaborative creation, rather than a destructive force. He says that many projects have been undertaken in Taiwan, including the dictionary project, budget visualization, and live broadcasts of proceedings.

Noting that Code for Japan was engaged in similar activities at the same time, Seki says that Taiwan's contribution was to quickly escalate this cooperative creation effort to a national scale, rather than a municipal or city scale. As a result, he explains that crowdsourcing became a national direction at the end of 2014 and has been used as an institutionalized infrastructure building strategy since 2017.

Glenn analyzes that the United States, Taiwan, and Japan are in different but interrelated positions on this issue. Japan has capacity, community, and capability, but perhaps lacks motivation. The U.S. has the motivation but lacks the capacity. Taiwan has both. He states that it is time to utilize and expand the strengths of each.

Glenn and Audrey discuss that the preface to the Japanese version of the book should not be the same as the English version. They suggest that while the English version starts with a sense of crisis, the Japanese version needs to show that it can be scaled to a larger society like Japan by providing examples of how it can be done. She says that the Taiwanese version (Chinese version) reverses the order of the English version by starting with the Taiwanese story and then touching on issues in the West. Audrey emphasizes that the Japanese version should also draw directly from the Japanese experience, saying that although not mentioned in the book's introduction, Japanese culture and traditions (e.g., Doraemon, activities in Morioka, Edward Deming's ideas) are richly suggestive in scaling plurarities. He speaks of how this will motivate the people of Japan to see this as their own personal matter.

Mr. Seki agrees with Glen's sense that there is a lack of motivation in Japan, as he pointed out. He says that although he started his own activities with Code for America as a reference to apply his engineering skills to improve society after the Great East Japan Earthquake, he realized that he could not change the fundamental aspects of society just by applying technology. He felt that although it could be a coping mechanism, it was unlikely to change people's minds and motivation.

Seki says that to solve this issue, he joined the government side and began to learn what they valued and why they did not talk to each other. While struggling with the differences in concepts, he says he encountered the concept of "continuous improvement" at the g0v summit and learned that by not only continuing to use the tools created at the hackathon, but also by continuing to invite people from the administration to work hands-on together, trust was built and a common vision was created.

Glenn mentions the possibility that Plurality's book could play an important role in defining the future of Asia. He suggests that it is time for Asia to assume its own responsibilities, and while Taiwan has provided an excellent demonstration case, Japan may be the messenger to convey this to India and Southeast Asia. Nishio points out that Japanese managers have an ideology that emphasizes regional enrichment over market dominance (e.g., water supply philosophy), so Plurality is a business book with an important message for them as well.

3. Plurality in the private sector (corporate)

Mr. Nishio said that it will be important for the private sector to invest in social value and work with communities, noting that Code for Japan is also working with the Toyota Foundation and others on activities such as the Living Lab, and that companies have ongoing resources and the ability to deploy services, and are willing to invest if they share the vision. He mentioned that companies are willing to invest if they have a shared vision because they have ongoing resources and the ability to deploy services.

Glenn said that Plurality needs to deliver the message to the core of the business, the production process, and the organization's response to technological change, and that if we can show that innovation from civic engagement can lead to increased productivity for companies, there will be more reason for companies to invest in the civic and democratic space. He says AI has attracted a lot of hype, but it has not led to organizational change, and he believes that plurality has the opportunity to do so.

Seki said that many open source projects lack staying power and "die," a challenge unique to civic tech. Since there is no mechanism for investing resources through investment as there is with startups, he plans to solve this problem by creating a new fund (a Quadratic Fund for Social Impact) that will raise 10 billion yen from private companies, invest it in the stock market, and provide the profits to fund quadratic funding, etc. The following is a description of the plan to establish a hedge fund of sorts.

Mr. Alex (?????) explains that in the past there has been a complete separation between private and public funding for public goods, but that Pullarity's book shows how to use signals from the private market to discover what is public and access different sources of funding through quadratic funding, etc. We will discuss.

Glenn mentioned the possibility of a SaaS (Software as a Service) to practice plurality within the enterprise, just as Github's success is in the "openness" within the organization, which would be a source of revenue and legitimize civic tech.

Mr. Nishio mentioned Cybozu's recommendation of "parallel work (side jobs)** in which employees work for multiple companies as a way to increase plurality within a company, and suggested that this could create "intersecting groups" between companies, making a form of plurality across companies possible in Japan. Glenn also suggested that this could create "intersecting groups" between companies, making a form of plurality possible in Japan. Glenn will also mention Microsoft's "One Microsoft" philosophy, stating that it is important to view companies as environments of public goods and provide incentives to cross boundaries.

Mr. Seki pointed out that when companies cooperate, it is important to focus on specific issue areas such as climate change and declining birthrates, not just on abstract reasons such as for plurarities. Mr. Nishio suggests that quadratic funding could be a good tool for discovering synergies in "what specifically to cooperate on," and Mr. Seki agrees.

Audrey introduced the Public Digital Innovation Space (PDIS) in Taiwan, describing its organizational structure (half bureaucrats and half civic tech talent) and functions, explaining that it is an institutionalized space for collaborative creation where one person from each ministry is brought in to deliberately create an intersection of different perspectives and facilitate the translation of new ideas into the culture and language of government. This is described as an institutionalized collaborative creative space that facilitates the translation of new ideas into the culture and language of the government. Glenn adds that the same dynamics are at work in large companies such as Microsoft.

Mr. Seki noted that Japan's Digital Agency is also characterized by a large number of private-sector personnel, but that the culture of incorporating ideas from hackathons and other events has not yet taken root, as is the case in Taiwan, and that there is more of a tendency to think internally. However, he mentions the possibility that experiments at the city level, such as in Tokyo, are progressing, and suggests that activities at the local government and corporate level may lead to social contributions through openness.

Mr. Nishio mentions the current situation where people are fearful of technological advances (especially AI), especially the elderly who fear they will be left behind, and asks how this is being overcome in Taiwan.

Audrey will introduce the idea that advanced technology should be introduced in places that are more difficult for technology to reach, such as rural and mountainous areas, rather than urban areas (e.g., medical supply delivery by drone and telemedicine). He will explain that this will allow ICT technology to bring tangible benefits that can make the difference between life and death to people who are disconnected due to physical distance and mobility difficulties. He will also note that in aging communities, it is important to provide opportunities for the elderly to contribute to society so that they feel they are making a difference, and that digital infrastructure can support this.

Seki sympathizes with the "no need to forcibly pull people into the digital world" and "help those who help" approach, and mentions the reality that activities in the community and providing something for someone is in itself a joy (for example, an uncle holding a flag at a traffic light). He talks about the importance of the idea of increasing the human joy or "care" part and automating or reducing "non-care" activities such as transportation and procedures. He points out that the benefits of digitization in areas with aging populations are easier to understand because it is directly related to helping people, and this will lead to the possibility of working generations being able to live comfortably in the countryside in the future.

Noting the possibility of transforming the elderly into "helpers" who are not only able to help but also willing to contribute to society as volunteers, Glenn says that a large volunteer workforce can be leveraged by reducing the technical burden and providing opportunities for them to contribute. Nishio summarizes that this would lead to a cycle of improvement, not only "helping helpers" but also "transforming those who can help into helpers.

Nishio asks how a non-technical person can move to achieve plurality.

Glenn will provide examples of how non-technical people can leapfrog (as Evan from Carpenter in Oakland became proficient in Github) and suggest that there are opportunities for people who have felt marginalized by technology to participate and become leaders on the cutting edge by learning new technologies.

Seki emphasizes that in an open source community, even if you are not familiar with the technology, you can contribute in various ways, such as event management and community management, etc. Code for Japan also has activities such as a "knitting club" that are not directly related to technology, and he points out that if only engineers gather, diversity is lost and the hurdle for beginners becomes high. He also points out that when only engineers gather together, diversity is lost and the hurdle becomes higher for beginners. Rather than skills, he says, it is more important to create a variety of ways to contribute and a "fun place" to work.

Audrey said that engineers are not in the majority at hackathons in Taiwan, and that the proliferation of no-code tools has lowered the technical hurdles. He said that imagination to draw clear use cases, service designers to draw user journeys, and listening skills to listen to citizens are more important now than knowledge of programming languages and APIs.

Nishio touches on the concern that even if the technical hurdles are lowered, power will be concentrated in the hands of those with strong skills and those who do not feel that they are on the side of the persecuted, and asks how to tell those who are afraid that this is not the case.

Glenn said that culture itself is important, and that we need to involve a diverse group of people in the digital transformation process. While the technical elements are important, ultimately it is the "layers of culture" that people can relate to and replicate in their own unique ways, he said, analyzing the cultural soil in Japan that has made it easy for Code for Japan to scale.

Mr. Seki believes that the solution to the resistance to technology and the fear of losing power to something they don't understand is to tell them, "We are not trying to replace you, we are trying to help you. He believes that the solution is not to ask them to come to us, but to work with them and build trust through their achievements. He also mentions the importance of providing various opportunities for the younger generation to experience a positive future and the importance of education to show that they can be "makers" rather than mere consumers. Nishio agrees, saying that the example of the digital villagers is a good example of how trust was created when the elderly recognized people engaged in digital activities as "people who can help them.

Alex mentions the readership of the article (Cybozu-style readers, who are unfamiliar with the concept of plurality) and asks him to start with the basic concept of plurality and explain it to them.

Audrey said that East Asian cultures tend to distance themselves from people with different opinions, explaining that plurality is a way to use technology to turn differences into a source of energy rather than subduing them. He says that technologies such as privacy protection, anonymity, and contextual integrity can increase creative possibilities while avoiding conflict. He points out that this is similar to the idea in the Toyota Production System that encourages everyone, including the lowest level workers, to find and report defects, and that this spirit needs to be updated to the digital realm.

Audrey explains why she chose the term "Plurality". **She said that words such as "Inclusive Diversity" and "Digital Democracy "** are already colored by a particular field and tend to have limited connotations such as gender, race, and electronic voting machines, so she thought "plurality" was broader than these words and could indicate the primary focus of the technology that bridges the gap. He said that it has echoes of pluralism and singularity, and that it has the advantage of being both a concept that combines plurality and technology and, because it is not yet clearly defined, can be shaped in a flexible way. Glenn said. Glenn adds that it also leads to the idea of "digital in monochrome" and "networks of networks," which sees digital as a map of human organization.

Audrey emphasizes that plurality is not science fiction and that there are already good examples of it working in practice in many places (e.g., Japan and Taiwan).

Audrey and Glenn say that plurality can be described as a kind of conservatism, in the sense of conserving (conserving) the best parts of existing social functions; resisting the view, espoused by AGI and extreme libertarianism, that technology will take human jobs and destroy social structures, they say that " In response to the popular notion that "it is easy to know, but difficult to do," he quotes Sun Yat-sen as saying that "what is right is easier to do than to know," and says the problem is not so much the organization of things as their conceptualization. He states that it is important to accept the complexity of the world and to become familiar with the complexity of self and the world.

He also touches on the importance of technical implementation (Part 4 in the book), saying that technology needs to be developed by companies to avoid silos and uniformity: Worldcoin's uniform approach to identification by iris scan is simplistic at best, and the function of ID is more complex, suggesting that a more deliberate approach, like that of oriental architecture (learning from nature), is needed. This is a way of thinking, Glenn says, that is consistent with diverse ways of being, such as the "useless use" of Zhuangzi's legend, Taiwan's DID, and Japan's corporate-internal identity.

He explains that some people's fear of technology comes from the fear that someone in Silicon Valley will dictate their lives, and that plurality is the idea that technology serves culture. Audley also mentions philosopher Yu Hui's ideas of "technodiversity" and "cosmotechnics" (reconfiguring technology to fit culture), and states that, like biodiversity, technodiversity prevents the risk of extinction due to homogeneity. The danger of H.I. (Hierarchical Intelligence) is not that technology will dominate, but that humans will surrender everything to technology and stop thinking and acting for themselves, as in the story "The Machine Stops.

Toward the end of the conversation, he mentions the Cybozu-style readership to whom the article was published, and states that he hopes they will realize through the concept of plurality that their company's activities (such as improving operations with KINTONE) can lead to "helping those who help" and that they will be interested in plurality.

Throughout, there was a lively discussion from the respective perspectives of Japan, the U.S., and Taiwan on the reasons why plurality is needed at the public, private, and individual levels, specific efforts and challenges to achieve it, and its relationship to technology and culture. In particular, the new fundraising efforts by Code for Japan, the organizational theory of Taiwan's PDIS, and approaches to overcoming fear of technology were discussed in concrete terms.

---