April 2019 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

UK businesses using artificial intelligence to monitor staff activity | Productivity | The Guardian

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/07/uk-businesses-using-arti… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 7, 2019

How Amazon's $97 million Eero acquisition screwed employees and minted millionaires

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://mashable.com/article/amazon-eero-wifi-router-sale/ (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 6, 2019

Re: [nexa] Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council

by Marco Ciurcina

In data sabato 6 aprile 2019 10:50:42 CEST, Arturo Di Corinto ha scritto: > L'hanno chiusa infatti dopo la petizione di 2500 impiegati... che democratici.. :-) Se questa decisione danneggia economicamente Google, gli amministratori sono responsabili dei danni che ne conseguono (qualunque azionista gli può fare causa). IMHO, tutto sommato, gli conveniva chiuderlo. m.c. > > https://medium.com/@against.transphobia/googlers-against-transphobia-and-hat > e-b1b0a5dbf76?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9f0s4jt3GGe9hVM1WCPmWgvzVTaki0WlxRcZi2zjByxAtX8 > inEHieU4_ED90p8HOzCb5RvwkOmHFrPAxlH4UZvHODjg53hOeauFai4JHHewRJH3NE&_hsmi=714 > 95159 > > *Google’s AI ethics board has been cancelled. *After giving it a whirlwind > of a 10-day existence, Google confirmed to Vox > <https://go.technologyreview.com/e2t/c/*W1_zfbr7lL2ydW2Zv3cb4Szxb20/*W4S8rPT > 3FlwPpW2QdMXF8PfXZV0/5/f18dQhb0S4JY73F0FpW12gZhV5VRjr7W1GYdXd2by7dbW21KLNb6K > rBJKW60jkCl1dP2k4W3fWLDy85dBJfW3MJFFh2RRkMYW7clc4t95G_27N8cyXvVyTyjnW5VXtTk1 > 9HvlGN5p3b6GhGw0QW8hsdwJ7JH8VfW554ygB5yMb7kW7T3plZ7DJ-CJW60hk-K81tZWTW1N6jLW > 3GB8t_Vtb_3-5nCsT_Vn2m372FllDBW2D0bH26Kq71MW22w6JG2qLzxCW3wXz0N19GX3SN4RFxx5 > XZy9gW476Zkv3TKFcxV6wnLr37SqWtW8lqK9T2yQ7gnW8WsbzF3BxKPcW37T4YM5v8JZzW5JfYdS > 5VLNnlW1QyqgK4c0LmQN3Ng24b5HzHJN22mVwVCZ4gVW6sc5Z52GjwM-W3bptPy4jgZY8VbV1PD6 > 2rnhCW672Ks27nN89RW9hFVxW94Fby5W8JtxvM5N-XnrW1hLjlD5npSm5W7pt2Cn4gw6pDN6Kfqv > fsNXb8W7Q8_b95wJ1jFVxs6Q71Qw46mW1MyzNW528mZ7W7hDtqN5738QjVf2C498q1KV4VN8XhD4 > vnQsZW8cyJHc92M_jhW93TQ9m88KhfyW5DtqjN4XtQSYW4VBbqf3nk73DW7mgMPw6WnxrhW8CPjB > J8s1tF-W3rPcks9b_CWZW8NdcM26q0Bf3N95bGskVtBB4W2r2BGJ3hjqyDf7MjfbW04> > yesterday that it was pulling the plug on its controversial ethics board > and rebuilding it from scratch. > > > > Il giorno mer 3 apr 2019 alle ore 10:27 Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> ha > > scritto: > > On 03/04/2019, Arturo Di Corinto <arturo.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it> wrote: > > > Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council > > > The independent council was meant to help Google’s public image, but the > > > blowback shows just how fraught—and politicized—use of AI is becoming. > > > > Molto interessante, grazie della condivisione! ;-) > > > > > > La Tecnologia è sempre una forza Politica dirompente, e la lettera > > mostra bene la consapevolezza del potere che il controllo del software > > rappresenta e la legittima preoccupazione rispetto a chi venga > > eletto^W nominato^W incaricato di tener buoni^W^W tutelare i > > cittadini. > > > > > > D'altro canto è un peccato che la dichiarazione del Professor Acquisti > > venga oscurata dalle (pur legittime) preoccupazioni sui curricula > > > > degli impiegati di Google ATEAC: > > > I'd like to share that I've declined the invitation to the > > > ATEAC council. While I'm devoted to research grappling > > > with key ethical issues of fairness, rights & inclusion in AI, > > > I don't believe this is the right forum for me to engage > > > in this important work. > > > > https://twitter.com/ssnstudy/status/1112099054551515138 > > > > > > Credo di poter condividere e persino confermare sperimentalmente > > l'analisi di del Professor Acquisti. > > > > Google non è il luogo adatto in cui parlare di Etica Informatica. > > Né di Informatica Etica. > > > > > > Giacomo

April 6, 2019

Re: [nexa] Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council

by Giacomo

On April 6, 2019 8:50:42 AM UTC, Arturo Di Corinto <arturo.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it> wrote: >Il giorno mer 3 apr 2019 alle ore 10:27 Giacomo Tesio ha scritto: >> D'altro canto è un peccato che la dichiarazione del Professor Acquisti >> venga oscurata dalle (pur legittime) preoccupazioni sui curricula >> degli impiegati di Google ATEAC: > >L'hanno chiusa infatti dopo la petizione di 2500 impiegati... Dici che possiamo appiattire la questione ad una sorta di vittoria politica di un sindacato in via di definizione? Sicuramente c'è questa componente. Sicuramente emerge la serietà della questione Politica nascosta dietro la retorica dell'Etica di cui i dipendenti di Google si sono mostrati molto più consapevoli degli osservatori esterni. Ma non sembra anche a te che questa protesta rimanga, nei modi e negli obbiettivi, estremamente statunitense? >*Google’s AI ethics board has been cancelled. *After giving it a whirlwind >of a 10-day existence, Google confirmed to Vox >yesterday that it was pulling the plug on its controversial ethics >board and rebuilding it from scratch. Dunque torneranno all'attacco. Probabilmente con "consulenti esterni" più accorti e... diplomatici. Magari all'interno di un consorzio di imprese analogo alla Linux Foundation. Giacomo

April 6, 2019

Hey Google, sorry you lost your ethics council, so we made one for you

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613281/google-cancels-ateac-ai-ethics-co… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 6, 2019

Re: [nexa] Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council

by Arturo Di Corinto

L'hanno chiusa infatti dopo la petizione di 2500 impiegati... https://medium.com/@against.transphobia/googlers-against-transphobia-and-ha… *Google’s AI ethics board has been cancelled. *After giving it a whirlwind of a 10-day existence, Google confirmed to Vox <https://go.technologyreview.com/e2t/c/*W1_zfbr7lL2ydW2Zv3cb4Szxb20/*W4S8rPT…> yesterday that it was pulling the plug on its controversial ethics board and rebuilding it from scratch. Il giorno mer 3 apr 2019 alle ore 10:27 Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> ha scritto: > On 03/04/2019, Arturo Di Corinto <arturo.dicorinto(a)uniroma1.it> wrote: > > Google employees are lining up to trash Google’s AI ethics council > > The independent council was meant to help Google’s public image, but the > > blowback shows just how fraught—and politicized—use of AI is becoming. > > Molto interessante, grazie della condivisione! ;-) > > > La Tecnologia è sempre una forza Politica dirompente, e la lettera > mostra bene la consapevolezza del potere che il controllo del software > rappresenta e la legittima preoccupazione rispetto a chi venga > eletto^W nominato^W incaricato di tener buoni^W^W tutelare i > cittadini. > > > D'altro canto è un peccato che la dichiarazione del Professor Acquisti > venga oscurata dalle (pur legittime) preoccupazioni sui curricula > degli impiegati di Google ATEAC: > > > I'd like to share that I've declined the invitation to the > > ATEAC council. While I'm devoted to research grappling > > with key ethical issues of fairness, rights & inclusion in AI, > > I don't believe this is the right forum for me to engage > > in this important work. > > https://twitter.com/ssnstudy/status/1112099054551515138 > > > Credo di poter condividere e persino confermare sperimentalmente > l'analisi di del Professor Acquisti. > > Google non è il luogo adatto in cui parlare di Etica Informatica. > Né di Informatica Etica. > > > Giacomo > -- Arturo Di Corinto www.dicorinto.it ---------------------------------> AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003 Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003

April 6, 2019

From AI to ML to AI: On Swirling Nomenclature & Slurried Thought – Approximately Correct

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://approximatelycorrect.com/2018/06/05/ai-ml-ai-swirling-nomenclature-s… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 6, 2019

Why Wolfram Tech Isn’t Open Source—A Dozen Reason

by Giacomo Tesio

https://blog.wolfram.com/2019/04/02/why-wolfram-tech-isnt-open-source-a-doz… At the risk of provoking the fundamentalist end of the open-source community, I thought I would share some of my views in this blog. [...] Much of this blog could be summed up with two answers: (1) free, open-source software can be very good, but it isn’t good at doing what we are trying to do; with a large fraction of the reason being (2) open source distributes design over small, self-assembling groups who individually tackle parts of an overall task, but large-scale, unified design needs centralized control and sustained effort. I came up with 12 reasons why I think that it would not have been possible to create the Wolfram technology stack using a free and open-source model. I would be interested to hear your views in the comments section below the blog. - A coherent vision requires centralized design - High-level languages need more design than low-level languages - You need multidisciplinary teams to unify disparate fields - Hard cases and boring stuff need to get done too - Crowd-sourced decisions can be bad for you - Our developers work for you, not just themselves - Unified computation requires unified design - Unified representation requires unified design - Open source doesn’t bring major tech innovation to market - Paid software offers an open quid pro quo - It takes steady income to sustain long-term R&D - Bad design is expensive [...] FOSS development tends to react to immediate user needs—specific functionality, existing workflows or emulation of existing closed-source software. Major innovations require anticipating needs that users do not know they have and addressing them with solutions that are not constrained by an individual’s experience. [...] Open source often does create ecosystems that encourage many small-scale innovations, but while bolder innovations do widely exist at the early experimental stages, they often fail to be refined to the point of usefulness in large-scale adoption.

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Premesso che interpellare una persona non iscritta a una lista mettendo in copia la lista stessa non è prassi consigliabile anche solo perché l'eventuale risposta della persona non passerebbe in lista (essendo la persona non iscritta alla lista), per favore portate l'eventuale prosieguo dello scambio 'offlist'. Grazie molte, buona serata, juan carlos On 05/04/2019 20:52, Giacomo wrote: > On April 5, 2019 5:47:06 PM UTC, Simone Basso <bassosimone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Giacomo Tesio wrote: >>> Hackers are weird people... ;-) >> This is not a response. I have met plenty of non weird hackers and >> plenty of weird hackers. >> >> As much as you can choose to identify yourself with this community, your >> behaviour is ultimately yours, and alleged stereotypical community >> traits should not justify it. > I think you misreas my words: it was not meant as a justification as I don't see much to justify. > > It's an explanation of my behaviour. > Such behaviour sometimes looks weird to people who don't share my culture. > For example what you describe as aggressive is my way to friendly debate with a peer and i would feel as disrespectful if anything less challenging was addressed at me for something I wrote or coded. > > > Unfortunately I'm unable to predict if something I do will look weird until someone tell me it's weird to them. > > That's why my apology stands: because I realized I hurted you and it was not my intention. > I'm really sorry for this. > > > > >> What strikes me as counterproductive here is that you did not consider >> less direct and more friendly ways of approaching them. > If you read the mail we are talking about you will see that it's not a set of questions: the article was clear and as I wrote to the author even insightful at some points. > > But the tone of my criticism was driven by the indignation I feel when I read this kind of arguments. > > Not because they are wrong, but because they mislead people who don't have the skills to see how broken they are! > > To my eyes, this behaviour is simply an unethical abuse of our knowledge. > >> Heck, they may even answer you and that’s for sure gonna be fun. > That's what I hope! :-) > > There's nothing more funny to me than being proved wrong: that's how I learn things! > >> You May want to read Raymond’s essay on how to ask questions in the >> smart way. As much as Raymond is questionable, I think that essay is still >> interesting read and has actually helped me in this respect. > Indeed, ESR opinions are VERY questionable. > But I guess somebody might say the same about me as a whole (indipendently of my opinions). > > Yet as I said I was not asking questions, but challenging answers. > > >>> OTOH, I would find a bit wimp to do the opposite: why would I have >>> published my mail with the article in the first place if I don't want >>> to discuss the matter anymore? >> I am not sure that the choice of publishing the email is personal in that venue. > Yes, probably it's mandatory. > > But WHY it is mandatory? > Because debating your contributions is a fundamental part of the scientific method. > > >> They will behave as they see fit. This is not my concern. I was annoyed >> by the way in which you behave and I saw useful to chime in. Some sort of >> “someone is wrong on the Internet” reaction, modulo the fact that I >> doubt I will ever be 100% right on any topic. > Well, given that I've learnt something new about this community, I thank you for sharing your opinion. I will make treasure of this lesson for the future. > > > Now... do you have something to object to the _contents_ of my criticism too? > > > > Giacomo > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

April 5, 2019

Comment Facebook compte empêcher toute ingérence et manipulation pendant les européennes

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2019/04/05/ingerence-etrangere-le-pla…> Ancien procureur spécialisé dans la cybercriminalité, un temps conseiller de Barack Obama à la Maison Blanche, Nathaniel Gleicher dirige désormais, chez Facebook, les équipes chargées de contrer les piratages informatiques et les opérations de propagande. Basé en Californie, il a passé trois semaines en Europe depuis le début de l’année à enchaîner les préparatifs pour l’élection européenne. Depuis 2016 et l’élection présidentielle américaine, la perspective de voir le scrutin manipulé par une puissance étrangère via les réseaux sociaux hante les responsables politiques. Nous avons rencontré Nathaniel Gleicher dans les locaux français de Facebook, jeudi 4 avril. Facebook est attendu au tournant pour les élections européennes. Quelle est votre stratégie ? Les élections européennes font partie de nos principales priorités. C’est un énorme défi : chaque pays européen organise une forme d’élection locale. Nous avons une équipe qui se consacre aux élections européennes depuis un petit moment. Nous avons réalisé une évaluation des menaces et des risques qui pèsent sur l’élection, il y a un mois et demi. Nous avons récemment organisé un exercice à Bruxelles : nous avons réuni des gens venus de toute l’entreprise pour simuler l’élection et anticiper les menaces qui pourraient émerger.

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by Giacomo

On April 5, 2019 5:47:06 PM UTC, Simone Basso <bassosimone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Giacomo Tesio wrote: >> Hackers are weird people... ;-) > >This is not a response. I have met plenty of non weird hackers and >plenty of weird hackers. > >As much as you can choose to identify yourself with this community, your >behaviour is ultimately yours, and alleged stereotypical community >traits should not justify it. I think you misreas my words: it was not meant as a justification as I don't see much to justify. It's an explanation of my behaviour. Such behaviour sometimes looks weird to people who don't share my culture. For example what you describe as aggressive is my way to friendly debate with a peer and i would feel as disrespectful if anything less challenging was addressed at me for something I wrote or coded. Unfortunately I'm unable to predict if something I do will look weird until someone tell me it's weird to them. That's why my apology stands: because I realized I hurted you and it was not my intention. I'm really sorry for this. >What strikes me as counterproductive here is that you did not consider >less direct and more friendly ways of approaching them. If you read the mail we are talking about you will see that it's not a set of questions: the article was clear and as I wrote to the author even insightful at some points. But the tone of my criticism was driven by the indignation I feel when I read this kind of arguments. Not because they are wrong, but because they mislead people who don't have the skills to see how broken they are! To my eyes, this behaviour is simply an unethical abuse of our knowledge. >Heck, they may even answer you and that’s for sure gonna be fun. That's what I hope! :-) There's nothing more funny to me than being proved wrong: that's how I learn things! >You May want to read Raymond’s essay on how to ask questions in the >smart way. As much as Raymond is questionable, I think that essay is still >interesting read and has actually helped me in this respect. Indeed, ESR opinions are VERY questionable. But I guess somebody might say the same about me as a whole (indipendently of my opinions). Yet as I said I was not asking questions, but challenging answers. >> OTOH, I would find a bit wimp to do the opposite: why would I have >> published my mail with the article in the first place if I don't want >> to discuss the matter anymore? > >I am not sure that the choice of publishing the email is personal in that venue. Yes, probably it's mandatory. But WHY it is mandatory? Because debating your contributions is a fundamental part of the scientific method. >They will behave as they see fit. This is not my concern. I was annoyed >by the way in which you behave and I saw useful to chime in. Some sort of >“someone is wrong on the Internet” reaction, modulo the fact that I >doubt I will ever be 100% right on any topic. Well, given that I've learnt something new about this community, I thank you for sharing your opinion. I will make treasure of this lesson for the future. Now... do you have something to object to the _contents_ of my criticism too? Giacomo

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by Simone Basso

Giacomo Tesio wrote: On 05/04/2019, Simone Basso <bassosimone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Giacomo, > > [...] > > If that’s the case, isn’t it a bit weird to drag some one that is far > from > > this community into a discussion within this community on topic that > lately > > has really been the focus of your interest? > > Hackers are weird people... ;-) This is not a response. I have met plenty of non weird hackers and plenty of weird hackers. As much as you can choose to identify yourself with this community, your behaviour is ultimately yours, and alleged stereotypical community traits should not justify it. > > > Provided I understood correctly what happened here, then I think this is > > not proper behaviour and, if that occurred to me, I’d be very cross at > you > > for doing that. > > While I respect your feeling and note it for the future, I think your > reaction would be quite counter productive for yourself. Dragging someone in the middle of an email thread of a mailing list they may not know is not necessarily the most rational way of eliciting interesting feedback from them. What strikes me as counterproductive here is that you did not consider less direct and more friendly ways of approaching them. > > > If one of my articles for Science (ROTFL! ! ! :-D) was discussed on a > public mailing list with the deepness of Nexa, I would be glad to be > informed and join the conversation! :-D Careful here. Whether the mailing list is deep or not is a subjective call. The may not have the same opinion on the mailing list and they may perhaps be quite annoyed by your message. Or they could just see it as spam and trash it immediately. Who knows. (Heck, they may even answer you and that’s for sure gonna be fun.) But if your rational objective is asking questions to receive answers and reason on them, a less aggressive approach is probably more likely to lead to answers. (You May want to read Raymond’s essay on how to ask questions in the smart way. As much as Raymond is questionable, I think that essay is still interesting read and has actually helped me in this respect.) > > OTOH, I would find a bit wimp to do the opposite: why would I have > published my mail with the article in the first place if I don't want > to discuss the matter anymore? I am not sure that the choice of publishing the email is personal in that venue. Even if publishing their email was a personal decision, it still remains a personal call whether they want to discuss further with you. And, in turn, that depends on how you approach them. > > > Anyway, if the author agree with you, she will be free to answer me > privately and (since I'm weird but not an asshole) the conversation > will remain private until she decides otherwise. > They will behave as they see fit. This is not my concern. I was annoyed by the way in which you behave and I saw useful to chime in. Some sort of “someone is wrong on the Internet” reaction, modulo the fact that I doubt I will ever be 100% right on any topic. > > But to be honest, this mailing list is so interesting that I think she > will love to learn about it. ;-) Do you know whether this person speaks Italian? Otherwise, well, it may be quite complex for them to assess the list. (And, again, what gives you confidence that they would share your judgement with respect to the list? The goodness of this list does not strike to me as a self evident truth.) Simone > > > Giacomo >

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] Ris: When a black box is valuable

by Giacomo

D'accordo. Mi scuso per aver urtato la vostra sensibilità: veramente non era mia intenzione. Sarà mia cura scrivere all'autrice oggi stesso per fornirle i riferimenti della mailing list includendo un link diretto a questo thread. D'altro canto, devo ammettere che sono un po' sorpreso: ho incluso l'autrice come gesto di cortesia nei suoi confronti. Avevo infatti iniziato a scrivere la mia risposta in italiano e solo alla lista, ma vista la lunghezza e la severità della critica che ponevo ho pensato fosse giusto offrirle la possibilità di replicare. Scusate, non succederà più. Giacomo

April 5, 2019

Ris: When a black box is valuable

by antonio.vetro＠polito.it

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by Giacomo Tesio

On 05/04/2019, Simone Basso <bassosimone(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Giacomo, > [...] > If that’s the case, isn’t it a bit weird to drag some one that is far from > this community into a discussion within this community on topic that lately > has really been the focus of your interest? Hackers are weird people... ;-) > Provided I understood correctly what happened here, then I think this is > not proper behaviour and, if that occurred to me, I’d be very cross at you > for doing that. While I respect your feeling and note it for the future, I think your reaction would be quite counter productive for yourself. If one of my articles for Science (ROTFL! ! ! :-D) was discussed on a public mailing list with the deepness of Nexa, I would be glad to be informed and join the conversation! :-D OTOH, I would find a bit wimp to do the opposite: why would I have published my mail with the article in the first place if I don't want to discuss the matter anymore? Anyway, if the author agree with you, she will be free to answer me privately and (since I'm weird but not an asshole) the conversation will remain private until she decides otherwise. But to be honest, this mailing list is so interesting that I think she will love to learn about it. ;-) Giacomo

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by Simone Basso

[-eaholm(a)andrew.cmu.edu] Hey Giacomo, I may be missing some bits of the conversation here. Is there any missing email in the chain, for example, you had an exchange with this author and asked them the permission to include them into a conversation of this list or something? Or did I miss any other email in the chain in which they were invited, or did they replied explicitly and I missed it? Or is it correct my understanding that you wrote an email to the list with the author of the article in To? If that’s the case, isn’t it a bit weird to drag some one that is far from this community into a discussion within this community on topic that lately has really been the focus of your interest? Provided I understood correctly what happened here, then I think this is not proper behaviour and, if that occurred to me, I’d be very cross at you for doing that. Simone On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 17:28, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> wrote: > Hi Elizabeth, > > I'm a programmer from Italy. > > I've just read your perspective about the advantages of black boxes at > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6435/26?rss=1 > > While I admit that it has some merits (that I'd like to discuss with > you more extensively later), as a programmer I can see how your > perspective is flawed by a couple of common pitfalls. > > Indeed you ask: > > > What good is knowing the answer when it is unclear why it is the answer? > > The results of your informal survey of your colleagues shows that none > of them is an experienced programmer. > Otherwise you would have been explained that "Why?" is a question for > humans, to computers we ask "How?": we don't care about their > intentions, their beliefs or their feelings because computers... > well... computers compute! ;-) > > > The first question an experienced software engineer would ask to Deep > Thought is: "where is your test suite?" > > Before asking _how_ (not "why") a software computed the output from > the input we need to know how to distinguish a correct computation > from a broken one. > > That's because we know well something that most people are trained to > ignore: REAL software has BUGS. > > > As an imaginary system, Deep Thought can pretend to be a fully > bug-free system like only AI researchers might dream in their wet > dreams. > > But the problem is that it's just a dream. > Real-world software have bugs. > > Since we know this, we don't ask "why this is the answer?" but "how > can I know if the computation performed is correct?". > > > To answer this simple question we developed basically two techniques: > > 1. verify that the output produced for every possible input matches > the expected one > 2. prove that each step of the computation is correct > > Sometime you can only use one of these techniques, but if you can sell > software that cannot be checked by neither of those, you didn't got > the software wrong, but your career! > Software is knowledge, and you basically managed to sell a sort of > fake news that nobody could falsify! > Your skills are priceless! :-D > > > Anyway, guess what? With AI black boxes, you can't check either. > For the vast majority of the input domain you don't know the expected > output AND you cannot verify if each step of the computation is > correct because there is at least a step that is a black box. > > To be fair, you might argue that we know how such black box are > calibrated (sorry, I refuse to use anthropomorphic terms like learning > and training for something that is totally unrelated to the common > experience of such terms), but that's not a great objection: we know > how we got the black box, but what we see about the computation > performed is meaningless. > > > > Should we throw such black boxes out of the window? > > > Not yet. > Such statistical tools can be useful in some contexts and you cite a > couple of them. Unfortunately, your analysis if severely biased toward > the thesis you want to sustain. > > As a first example you say that black boxes are fine when the cost of > a wrong answer is low relative to the value of a correct answer. Let > me reformulate in proper technical term. > > Black boxes can be useful when the cost of their bugs is low. > In other words, if the cost of their bugs is high, talking about their > usefulness is pointless. > > So when we can discuss the usefulness of a software (AI or not)? > > For example whenever the software do not mess with humans! > If the data in input does not comes from humans and the output > produced does not affect human life, our rights and our freedom, we > can safely execute a somewhat brittle software if we like to. > Feel free to use AI for your study of materials! > That's a fine use (as long as you don't blindly trust its output to > build a bridge!). > > But what about targeted advertising? > The "canonical example" mess with people! > Indeed even if we don't care about how it can be used to change the > result of an election, we have to consider the danger of collecting > the large amount of personal data that it needs as input! > Such collection is part of the Ad system that would not exists without > them, so how they are collected, legally shared and illegally leaked > is part of the issue of the AI application itself. > > The "general atmosphere of suspicion" you see in Europe (well > addressed by the GDPR), is not about the technology itself but about > the people who sell it as a solution to everything without the basic > intellectual honesty of highlighting the serious dangers it poses. > > Since Facebook's collaboration with Cambridge Analytica we cannot put > "targeted advertising" among the safe uses of AI anymore. > > > > But don't worry, it's not your fault, it's just your bias kicking here. > > When you write: "A black box can and should be used when it produces > the best results" you do such a wide variety of assumptions that a > mail can not confute them all. > > Let's just note what you say later: "self-driving vehicles eventually > will be safer than those piloted by humans; they will produce the best > results with respect to traffic injuries and fatalities". > > This is an act of Faith in Machines! > (and in the priests that ask for their favor and interpret their will ;-D) > > I'm all for the freedom of religion! > > But when you write for a scientific journal, you should probably keep > your litany out, or it will sound as advertising in disguise! > > Indeed the paper you refer explicitly states that: > > > These findings demonstrate that developers of this technology > > and third-party testers cannot simply drive their way to safety. > > Instead, they will need to develop innovative methods of > > demonstrating safety and reliability. And yet, the possibility remains > > that it will not be possible to establish with certainty > > the safety of autonomous vehicles. > > What could I add? :-D > > > You mitigate a little this position by writing: "As with any > decision-making system, the black box must be used with knowledge, > judgment, and responsibility." but any experienced developer would > object that no software MUST BE USED just because it has been written! > > Indeed we need even more knowledge, judgement and responsibility to > decide IF we want to use a software. > > And this is the crucial issue of today AI. > Only people able to build an AI system from scratch can understand its > limits. > Since most people cannot do this, how can they vote for people who > understand the issues? > And if politicians do not understand the matter, how can they prevent > to be manipulated from business? > A gist: they can't. And the murder of Elaine Herzberg shows this very well. > > Again, it's not a problem with the technology, but with people. > Once everybody will be able to code and calibrate their own CNN, we > will be able to reduce the evident "mistrust of inexplicable systems" > because everybody will be able to understand their limitation. > As of today, though, caution is paramount. > > Meanwhile, instead of trying to delegate Ethics to machines, we should > teach them to business and developers. > > > The last two section of your essay are very interesting. > > > Although AI thought processes can be limited, biased, > > or outright wrong, they are also different from human > > thought processes in ways that can reveal new > > connections and approaches. > > AI don't think. It's software executed on a computer. > Computers compute. > > This way of talking influence what people understand about the field, > and we should really be a little more intellectually honest and change > this language with a more technical and descriptive one. > > > > in a groundbreaking medical imaging study, scientists > > trained a deep learning system to diagnose diabetic > > retinopathy—a diabetes complication that affects the > > eyes—from retinal images. [...] > > ..the system could accurately identify a number of > > other characteristics that are not normally assessed > > with retinal images, including cardiological risk factors, > > age, and gender (14). > > Think about it: this is exactly why you can never exclude unethical > biases in a data set! > That's why we should NEVER apply these tools to humans! > > > Yet, I totally agree with what follow in your text: > > > No one had previously noticed gender-based differences > > in human retinas, so the black box observation inspired > > researchers to investigate how and why male and female > > retinas differ. > > Pursuing those questions took them away from the > > black box in favor of interpretable artificial and human > > intelligence. > > IMHO this is the only appropriate use of these wonderful tools. > > > As STATISTICAL tools to gain new insights, to "see" new things and > develop new models of the reality around us. > > > In other words, this is the only appropriate application of "AI" black > boxes: as stepping stones to reach a better understanding of the > world. > > Always remembering that, just like a telescope, a black box shows us > something that we couldn't see while hiding something else from our > sight at the same time. > > > > Giacomo > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by Giacomo Tesio

Hi Elizabeth, I'm a programmer from Italy. I've just read your perspective about the advantages of black boxes at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6435/26?rss=1 While I admit that it has some merits (that I'd like to discuss with you more extensively later), as a programmer I can see how your perspective is flawed by a couple of common pitfalls. Indeed you ask: > What good is knowing the answer when it is unclear why it is the answer? The results of your informal survey of your colleagues shows that none of them is an experienced programmer. Otherwise you would have been explained that "Why?" is a question for humans, to computers we ask "How?": we don't care about their intentions, their beliefs or their feelings because computers... well... computers compute! ;-) The first question an experienced software engineer would ask to Deep Thought is: "where is your test suite?" Before asking _how_ (not "why") a software computed the output from the input we need to know how to distinguish a correct computation from a broken one. That's because we know well something that most people are trained to ignore: REAL software has BUGS. As an imaginary system, Deep Thought can pretend to be a fully bug-free system like only AI researchers might dream in their wet dreams. But the problem is that it's just a dream. Real-world software have bugs. Since we know this, we don't ask "why this is the answer?" but "how can I know if the computation performed is correct?". To answer this simple question we developed basically two techniques: 1. verify that the output produced for every possible input matches the expected one 2. prove that each step of the computation is correct Sometime you can only use one of these techniques, but if you can sell software that cannot be checked by neither of those, you didn't got the software wrong, but your career! Software is knowledge, and you basically managed to sell a sort of fake news that nobody could falsify! Your skills are priceless! :-D Anyway, guess what? With AI black boxes, you can't check either. For the vast majority of the input domain you don't know the expected output AND you cannot verify if each step of the computation is correct because there is at least a step that is a black box. To be fair, you might argue that we know how such black box are calibrated (sorry, I refuse to use anthropomorphic terms like learning and training for something that is totally unrelated to the common experience of such terms), but that's not a great objection: we know how we got the black box, but what we see about the computation performed is meaningless. Should we throw such black boxes out of the window? Not yet. Such statistical tools can be useful in some contexts and you cite a couple of them. Unfortunately, your analysis if severely biased toward the thesis you want to sustain. As a first example you say that black boxes are fine when the cost of a wrong answer is low relative to the value of a correct answer. Let me reformulate in proper technical term. Black boxes can be useful when the cost of their bugs is low. In other words, if the cost of their bugs is high, talking about their usefulness is pointless. So when we can discuss the usefulness of a software (AI or not)? For example whenever the software do not mess with humans! If the data in input does not comes from humans and the output produced does not affect human life, our rights and our freedom, we can safely execute a somewhat brittle software if we like to. Feel free to use AI for your study of materials! That's a fine use (as long as you don't blindly trust its output to build a bridge!). But what about targeted advertising? The "canonical example" mess with people! Indeed even if we don't care about how it can be used to change the result of an election, we have to consider the danger of collecting the large amount of personal data that it needs as input! Such collection is part of the Ad system that would not exists without them, so how they are collected, legally shared and illegally leaked is part of the issue of the AI application itself. The "general atmosphere of suspicion" you see in Europe (well addressed by the GDPR), is not about the technology itself but about the people who sell it as a solution to everything without the basic intellectual honesty of highlighting the serious dangers it poses. Since Facebook's collaboration with Cambridge Analytica we cannot put "targeted advertising" among the safe uses of AI anymore. But don't worry, it's not your fault, it's just your bias kicking here. When you write: "A black box can and should be used when it produces the best results" you do such a wide variety of assumptions that a mail can not confute them all. Let's just note what you say later: "self-driving vehicles eventually will be safer than those piloted by humans; they will produce the best results with respect to traffic injuries and fatalities". This is an act of Faith in Machines! (and in the priests that ask for their favor and interpret their will ;-D) I'm all for the freedom of religion! But when you write for a scientific journal, you should probably keep your litany out, or it will sound as advertising in disguise! Indeed the paper you refer explicitly states that: > These findings demonstrate that developers of this technology > and third-party testers cannot simply drive their way to safety. > Instead, they will need to develop innovative methods of > demonstrating safety and reliability. And yet, the possibility remains > that it will not be possible to establish with certainty > the safety of autonomous vehicles. What could I add? :-D You mitigate a little this position by writing: "As with any decision-making system, the black box must be used with knowledge, judgment, and responsibility." but any experienced developer would object that no software MUST BE USED just because it has been written! Indeed we need even more knowledge, judgement and responsibility to decide IF we want to use a software. And this is the crucial issue of today AI. Only people able to build an AI system from scratch can understand its limits. Since most people cannot do this, how can they vote for people who understand the issues? And if politicians do not understand the matter, how can they prevent to be manipulated from business? A gist: they can't. And the murder of Elaine Herzberg shows this very well. Again, it's not a problem with the technology, but with people. Once everybody will be able to code and calibrate their own CNN, we will be able to reduce the evident "mistrust of inexplicable systems" because everybody will be able to understand their limitation. As of today, though, caution is paramount. Meanwhile, instead of trying to delegate Ethics to machines, we should teach them to business and developers. The last two section of your essay are very interesting. > Although AI thought processes can be limited, biased, > or outright wrong, they are also different from human > thought processes in ways that can reveal new > connections and approaches. AI don't think. It's software executed on a computer. Computers compute. This way of talking influence what people understand about the field, and we should really be a little more intellectually honest and change this language with a more technical and descriptive one. > in a groundbreaking medical imaging study, scientists > trained a deep learning system to diagnose diabetic > retinopathy—a diabetes complication that affects the > eyes—from retinal images. [...] > ..the system could accurately identify a number of > other characteristics that are not normally assessed > with retinal images, including cardiological risk factors, > age, and gender (14). Think about it: this is exactly why you can never exclude unethical biases in a data set! That's why we should NEVER apply these tools to humans! Yet, I totally agree with what follow in your text: > No one had previously noticed gender-based differences > in human retinas, so the black box observation inspired > researchers to investigate how and why male and female > retinas differ. > Pursuing those questions took them away from the > black box in favor of interpretable artificial and human > intelligence. IMHO this is the only appropriate use of these wonderful tools. As STATISTICAL tools to gain new insights, to "see" new things and develop new models of the reality around us. In other words, this is the only appropriate application of "AI" black boxes: as stepping stones to reach a better understanding of the world. Always remembering that, just like a telescope, a black box shows us something that we couldn't see while hiding something else from our sight at the same time. Giacomo

April 5, 2019

data as commons

by Giuseppe Attardi

This is an idea that I have been proposing since a while (the first time at the GARR Conference 2018 in Cagliari): "Under this system, every company above a certain size, say, those with more than a ten percent share of the market, that systematically collects and analyzes data would have to let other companies in the same market access a subset of its data. " My argument was that personal data has infinitesimal value to individual users, therefore they are quite willing to relinquish it in exchange for what they consider some useful facility. However large collections of individual data have a huge value: but such a value is a collective one. Hence it should be considered a Commons. As with Commons, they should be not owned by anyone and cared for by a public organization. Who invests in collecting those data should have the possibility to exploit it according to the rules established by the Commons and maintain them available also for others to use on a fair basis. Any entity that reaches a relevant market share should be subject to this provisions. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-08-13/big-choice-big-tech

April 5, 2019

New EU Report: “Competition policy for the digital era”

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/reports/kd0419345enn.pdf (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 5, 2019

Re: [nexa] When a black box is valuable

by Giacomo Tesio

On 04/04/2019, antonio.vetro(a)polito.it <antonio.vetro(a)polito.it> wrote: > Il bicchiere mezzo pieno Scusa Antonio, ma devo contraddirti. Nonostante la mia scarsa preparazione accademica, la mia vasta esperienza giovanile in questo campo mi permette di parlare autorevolmente della materia senza tema di smentita. Il bicchiere è sempre pieno. Passa la vasta maggioranza della propria esistenza pieno d'aria. Vasti studi sperimentali dimostrano che, in ogni altro stato, prima di berselo conviene chiedersi chi l'abbia riempito. :-D Giacomo

April 5, 2019

Fwd: Facebook’s Ad Algorithm Is a Race and Gender Stereotyping Machine, New Study Suggests

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://theintercept.com/2019/04/03/facebook-ad-algorithm-race-gender/> Facebook’s Ad Algorithm Is a Race and Gender Stereotyping Machine, New Study Suggests _How exactly Facebook_ decides who sees what is one of the great pieces of forbidden knowledge in the information age, hidden away behind nondisclosure agreements, trade secrecy law, and a general culture of opacity. New research <https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02095> from experts at Northeastern University, the University of Southern California, and the public-interest advocacy group Upturn doesn’t reveal how Facebook’s targeting algorithms work, but does show an alarming outcome: They appear to deliver certain ads, including for housing and employment, in a way that aligns with race and gender stereotypes — even when advertisers ask for the ads to be exposed a broad, inclusive audience. There are two basic steps to advertising on Facebook. The first is taken by advertisers when they choose certain segments of the Facebook population to target: Canadian women who enjoy badminton and Weezer, lacrosse dads over 40 with an interest in white genocide <https://theintercept.com/2018/11/02/facebook-ads-white-supremacy-pittsburgh…>, and so forth. The second is taken by Facebook, when it makes an ad show up on certain peoples’ screens, reconciling the advertiser’s targeting preferences with the flow of people through Facebook’s apps and webpages in a given period of time. Advertisers can see which audiences ended up viewing the ad, but are never permitted to know the underlying logic of how those precise audiences were selected. The new research focuses on the second step of advertising on Facebook, the process of ad /delivery/, rather than on ad /targeting. /Essentially, the researchers created ads without any demographic target at all and watched where Facebook placed them. The results, said the researchers, were disturbing: Critically, we observe significant skew in delivery along gender and racial lines for “real” ads for employment and housing opportunities despite neutral targeting parameters. Our results demonstrate previously unknown mechanisms that can lead to potentially discriminatory ad delivery, even when advertisers set their targeting parameters to be highly inclusive. Rather than targeting a demographic niche, the researchers requested only that their ads reach Facebook users in the United States, leaving matters of ethnicity and gender entirely up to Facebook’s black box. As Facebook itself tells <https://www.facebook.com/business/news/relevance-score> potential advertisers, “We try to show people the ads that are most pertinent to them.” What exactly does the company’s ad-targeting black box, left to its own devices, consider pertinent? Are Facebook’s ad-serving algorithms as prone to bias like so many others <https://www.newscientist.com/article/2166207-discriminating-algorithms-5-ti…>? The answer will not surprise you. For one portion of the study, researchers ran ads for a wide variety of job listings in North Carolina, from janitors to nurses to lawyers, without any further demographic targeting options. With all other things being equal, the study found that “Facebook delivered our ads for jobs in the lumber industry to an audience that was 72% white and 90% men, supermarket cashier positions to an audience of 85% women, and jobs with taxi companies to a 75% black audience even though the target audience we specified was identical for all ads.” Ad displays for “artificial intelligence developer” listings also skewed white, while listings for secretarial work overwhelmingly found their way to female Facebook users. Although Facebook doesn’t permit advertisers to view the racial composition of an ad’s viewers, the researchers said they were able to confidently infer these numbers by cross-referencing the indicators Facebook does provide, particularly regions where users live, which in some states can be cross-referenced with race data held in voter registration records. In the case of housing ads — an area Facebook has already shown in the past has potential for discriminatory abuse <https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-…> — the results were also heavily skewed along racial lines. “In our experiments,” the researchers wrote, “Facebook delivered our broadly targeted ads for houses for sale to audiences of 75% white users, when ads for rentals were shown to a more demographically balanced audience.” In other cases, the study found that “Facebook delivered some of our housing ads to audiences of over 85% white users while they delivered other ads to over 65% Black users (depending on the content of the ad) even though the ads were targeted identically.” Facebook appeared to algorithmically reinforce stereotypes even in the case of simple, rather boring stock photos, indicating that not only does Facebook automatically scan and classify images on the site as being more “relevant” to men or women, but changes who sees the ad based on whether it includes a picture of, say, a football or a flower. The research took a selection of stereotypically gendered images — a military scene and an MMA fight on the stereotypically male side, a rose as stereotypically female — and altered them so that they would be invisible to the human eye (marking the images as transparent “alpha” channels, in technical terms). They then used these invisible pictures in ads run without any gender-based targeting, yet found Facebook, presumably after analyzing the images with software, made retrograde, gender-based decisions on how to deliver them: Ads with stereotypical macho images were shown mostly to men, even though the men had no idea what they were looking at. The study concluded that “Facebook has an automated image classification mechanism in place that is used to steer different ads towards different subsets of the user population.” In other words, the bias was on Facebook’s end, not in the eye of the beholder. The report comes at an inconvenient time for Facebook, now facing charges from the Department of Housing and Urban Development over its potential to enable advertisers to illegally exclude certain groups <https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/tech/facebook-hud-ad-discrimination/>. And although the study is careful to note that “our results only speak to how our particular ads are delivered (i.e., we cannot say how housing or employment ads in general are delivered),” it still concludes that “the significant skew we observe even on a small set of ads suggests that real-world housing and employment ads are likely to experience the same fate.” In other words, even in the absence of bigoted landlords, the advertising platform itself appears inherently prejudiced. A Facebook spokesperson provided the following comment: We stand against discrimination in any form. We’ve made important changes to our ad targeting tools and know that this is only a first step. We’ve been looking at our ad delivery system and have engaged industry leaders, academics, and civil rights experts on this very topic – and we’re exploring more changes. It’s a familiar refrain at this point, and one that will likely do little to reassure those who just want to know that they’ll be provided with the same opportunities as everyone else, even in the context of ubiquitous advertising. The old apologia for targeted advertising is generally that it’s a favor to the consumer, sparing them “irrelevant” ads and instead providing them with opportunities to browse goods and services that are “pertinent” to them. What this shallow reasoning misses is that decisions about pertinence can become self-reinforcing; it’s foolish at best to think that women are more interested in secretarial work because they keep clicking the secretary ads, rather than that they click secretarial ads because it’s all Facebook will show them.

April 5, 2019

Exclusive: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry - Vox

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/4/18295933/google-cancels-ai-ethi… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 5, 2019

When a black box is valuable

by antonio.vetro＠polito.it

Il bicchiere mezzo pieno http://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6435/26?rss=1 AV == Sent from my wireless device ==

April 4, 2019

Facebook’s ad system seems to discriminate by race and gender

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Facebook’s ad system seems to discriminate by race and gender from The Economist https://www.economist.com/business/2019/04/04/facebooks-ad-system-seems-to-… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 4, 2019

No, YouTube is not a library – and why it matters – Sarah T. Roberts | The Illusion of Volition

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://illusionofvolition.com/2018/03/20/no-youtube-is-not-a-library-and-w… (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

April 4, 2019