September 2020 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Social-media platforms are destroying evidence of war crimes
by Federico Guerrini Sept. 25, 2020

Sept. 25, 2020

"Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, recently revisited the social-media evidence it had cited in its public reports between 2007 and 2020 (though most were published in the past five years). It found that 11% of it had vanished. Others have run into similar problems. The Syrian Archive, a non-profit group that records and analyses evidence of atrocities in Syria, estimates that 21% of the nearly 1.75m YouTube videos it had catalogued up to June 2020 are no longer available. Almost 12% of the 1m or so tweets it logged have also disappeared." https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/26/social-media-pl… -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/

1 0

Testimony of Tim Kendall (Director of Monetization at Facebook)
by Giacomo Tesio Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

Riporto di seguito la testimonianza di Tim Kendalall alla commissione per l'energia ed il Commercio, tratta da https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/f… Suggerirei di sostituire mentalmente "algorithms" con "companies". Giacomo Thank you, Chairpersons Pallone and Schakowsky, for inviting me to speak today. When I started working in technology, my hope was to build products that brought people together in new and productive ways. I wanted to improve the world we all lived in. Instead, the social media services that I and others have built over the past 15 years have served to tear people apart with alarming speed and intensity. At the very least, we have eroded our collective understanding—at worst, I fear we are pushing ourselves to the brink of a civil war.I feel ashamed by this outcome. And I am deeply concerned. And to that end, I am compelled to talk to you about what we can do to limit further damage—and maybe even undo some of it. My path in technology started at Facebook where I was the first Director of Monetization. I thought my job was to figure out the business model for the company, and presumably one that sought to balance the needs of its stakeholders -- its advertisers, its users and its employees. Instead, we sought to mine as much attention as humanly possible and turn into historically unprecedented profits. To do this, we didn’t simply create something useful and fun. We took a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook, working to make our offering addictive at the outset. Tobacco companies initially just sought to make nicotine more potent. But eventually that wasn’t enough to grow the business as fast as they wanted. And so they added sugar and menthol to cigarettes so you could hold the smoke in your lungs for longer periods. At Facebook, we added status updates, photo tagging, and likes, which made status and reputation primary and laid the groundwork for a teenage mental health crisis. Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish were like Big Tobacco’s bronchodilators, which allowed the cigarette smoke to cover more surface area of the lungs. But that incendiary content alone wasn’t enough. To continue to grow the user base and in particular, the amount of time and attention users would surrender to Facebook, they needed more. Tobacco companies added ammonia to cigarettes to increase the speed with which nicotine traveled to the brain. Extreme, incendiary content—think shocking images, graphic videos, and headlines that incite outrage—sowed tribalism and division. And this result has been unprecedented engagement -- and profits. Facebook’s ability to deliver this incendiary content to the right person, at the right time, in the exact right way... that is their ammonia. Social media preys on the most primal parts of your brain. The algorithm maximizes your attention by hitting you repeatedly with content that triggers your strongest emotions— it aims to provoke, shock, and enrage. When you see something you agree with, you feel compelled to defend it. When you see something you don’t agree with, you feel compelled to attack it. People on the other side of the issue have the same impulses. The cycle continues with the algorithm in the middle happily dealing arms to both sides in an endless war of words and misinformation. All the while, the technology is getting smarter and better at provoking a response from you. These algorithms have brought out the worst in us. They’ve literally rewired our brains so that we’re detached from reality and immersed in tribalism. This is not by accident. It’s an algorithmically optimized playbook to maximize user attention -- and profits. And there are limited checks and balances. In 2016, internal analysis at Facebook found 64% of all extremist group joins were due to their own recommendation tools. Yet repeated attempts to counteract this problem were ignored or shut down. As you know, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act shields Internet companies from liability for third-party content. I can think of few industries that enjoy such broad immunity and none that have profited so greatly from this lack of basic regulation. I’m not a lawyer or legislator but I can't imagine where we'd be if we hadn't held tobacco companies accountable for making so many people sick. And yet, that is what we have allowed these companies to do. It has to change. When it comes to misinformation, these companies hide behind the First Amendment and say they stand for free speech. At the same time, their algorithms continually choose whose voice is actually heard. In truth, it is not free speech they revere. Instead, Facebook and their cohorts worship at the altar of engagement and cast all other concerns aside, raising the voices of division, anger, hate and misinformation to drown out the voices of truth, justice, morality, and peace. When it comes to spreading extremist views and propaganda, these services have content moderation tools—but the tools can never seem to keep up, despite these companies having billions of dollars at their disposal. Without accountability for the platforms, we can only expect the problem to continue and get worse. As these platforms continue to addict us and make us more vulnerable, we are going to get more depressed and anxious. Our judgement will continue to weaken and our susceptibility to radicalization will only increase. A Princeton study found that watching 2 minutes of a conspiracy theory video can make people less willing to help others and reduces their belief in established scientific facts. On a personal level, I’m aware that I’ve benefited from these addictive business models and this deepens my sense of responsibility for where we are and my sense of obligation to help us improve things. I am not sure I could have ever known at the time where the work that I contributed to would lead. But for my role, I do bear some responsibility. And I regret that. One thing I can do now, however, is what I am doing: dedicate all my time and resources to undo as much damage as I can. To be clear, social media is not the root cause of every problem we’re facing. But I believe it may be the most powerful accelerant in history.These services are making us sick. These services are dividing us. It’s time we take account of the damage. It’s time we put in place the necessary measures to protect ourselves—and our country.

1 0

Mon roman Sœur(s)
by Philippe Aigrain Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

Italian below My novel Sœur(s) went out yesterday. This polyphonic story occurs in a world of surveillance, influence and control, but it is not yet another dystopia. Here's what the reviews say : This tripartite narrative comes in the form of a polyphony that allows for a quirky and critical look - amazed! - on "our great camp of forced consumption and bureaucratized work". Fabrice Thumerel, Libr-Critique Between mass computer surveillance and political chance oscillating between metaphor and fantasy, a technical tale that operates both facetiously and to great depth, by mobilizing poetry, love and the gratuitous in the face of what crushes as if by reflex. Hugues Robert, Librairie Charybde* More here for French readers: https://www.publie.net/2020/09/23/nouveaute-soeurs-de-philippe-aigrain/ ------------ Il mio romanzo Sœur(s) è apparso ieri. This polyphonic story occurs in a world of surveillance, influence and control, but it is not yet another dystopia. Eco cosa dicono le recensioni: Questa narrazione tripartita si presenta sotto forma di una polifonia che consente uno sguardo bizzarro e critico - stupito! - sul "nostro grande campo di consumi forzati e lavoro burocratizzato". Fabrice Thumerel, Libr-Critique Tra sorveglianza informatica di massa e casualità politica che oscilla tra metafora e fantasia, un racconto tecnico che opera in modo scherzoso e profondo, mobilitando la poesia, l'amore e il gratuito di fronte a ciò che si schiaccia come per riflesso. Hugues Robert, Librairie Charybde per i lettori francesi: https://www.publie.net/2020/09/23/nouveaute-soeurs-de-philippe-aigrain/

1 0

The Social Dilemma, un processo tv ai social con troppe mancanze
by don Luca Peyron Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

Per chi avesse visto il docufilm su Netflix una riflessione a contorno dl https://www.avvenire.it/rubriche/pagine/un-processo-tv-ai-socialcon-troppe-… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

11 19

Re: [nexa] Intelligenza artificiale e medicina
by Giuseppe Attardi Sept. 24, 2020

Sept. 24, 2020

L’AI nella medicina è l’araba fenice per alcuni o la pietra filosofale per altri. Ma farei un passo indietro, riflettendo su quanto dice l’articolo. Occorreva aspettare l’AI per accorgersi che la digitalizzazione dei servizi sanitari non consisteva nella scansione (non scannerizzazzione) delle ricette? Occorreva aspettare l’AI per capire che i dati devono essere manipolabili per essere utili? Occorreva aspettare l’AI per scoprire che "Servono più competenze nel settore pubblico”? Che fine hanno fatto i 3 miliardi del Fascicolo Elettronico? https://www.corrierecomunicazioni.it/pa-digitale/fascicolo-sanitario-elettr… <https://www.corrierecomunicazioni.it/pa-digitale/fascicolo-sanitario-elettr…> Anche lì si parlava di partnership pubblico/privato. Quanto ai dati, che sono cruciali per le nuove tecnologie: li abbiamo resi inaccessibili anziché renderli disponibili alla sperimentazione e alla ricerca. In alcuni paesi vengono ceduti ai privati che ci costruiscono i loro modelli e ci fanno business (DeepMind in UK e IBM col Tecnopole in Italia). La mia esperienza su questo punto è stata deprimente: in un progetto per l’uso di tecniche di Natural Language Processing per analizzare ed estrarre informazioni dalle cartelle cliniche, pur finanziato dalla Regione Toscana, ci sono voluti quasi 2 anni per avere di straforo una piccola porzione di dati dalla ASL toscana su cui fare esperimenti (http://tanl.di.unipi.it/ris-ws/ <http://tanl.di.unipi.it/ris-ws/>). L’attenzione sollevata dall’AI ci fa vedere quanto siamo impreparati nella digitalizzazione, ma ben due anni fa l’AgID lo metteva in evidenza nel Libro Bianco sull’IA nella PA: https://ia.italia.it/assets/librobianco.pdf <https://ia.italia.it/assets/librobianco.pdf> Non so se le “cabine di regia” o i “consulenti privati sulla digitalizzazione della sanità” possano servire. Certo è che bisogna che tutti gli operatori sanitari vengano coinvolti e che vengano dati obiettivi diversi da quello del risparmio sui costi delle siringhe. — Beppe PS. Scannerizzare è un brutto inglesismo, che deriva dall’inglese scan, che deriva dal latino scandere, da cui l’italiano scandire. > On 23 Sep 2020, at 11:07, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:11:42 +0200 > From: Tommaso Caldarelli <tommaso.caldarelli(a)gmail.com <mailto:tommaso.caldarelli@gmail.com>> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>> > Subject: [nexa] Intelligenza artificiale e medicina > Message-ID: > <CAAntSS9Qo3zjHCQYOT+sj-nxUG-qzdEXj+nbJkKr8oGYOZ9CCw(a)mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAAntSS9Qo3zjHCQYOT+sj-nxUG-qzdEXj+nbJkKr8oGYOZ9CCw@mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Buongiorno! > > Vi segnalo il primo di due articoli a uscita ravvicinata su Sanità > Informazione, testata per la quale collaboro, su argomento medicina, > algoritmi e intelligenza artificiale > > https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lavoro/intelligenza-artificiale-e-medicin… <https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lavoro/intelligenza-artificiale-e-medicin…> > > Ogni commento è gradito. Che ne pensate? > > Una buona giornata > > Tc > > -- > Tommaso Caldarelli > 3386765100

2 1

Re: [nexa] Big bad data: We don't trust AI to make good decisions
by Giuseppe Attardi Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

Sembra sia di moda oggi quando un algoritmo non funziona bene, dire che è colpa dell’AI. Ho cercato dove fosse coinvolta la AI in questo caso, ma ho trovato solo citate tecniche di analisi statistica. Anche se l’AI usa tecniche statistiche durante l’apprendimento, AI e statistica non sono la stessa cosa. L’AI richiede dati annotati da umani secondo il principio di Human-in-the-loop, che contribuiscono un’interpretazione umana dei fenomeni. Se un sistema di diagnostica radiologica fa una segnalazione, è perché ha imparato da migliaia di immagini annotate da radiologi come si interpretano quelle immagini. Seconda considerazione. L’articolo riporta che: the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)'s draft AI auditing framework fairness requires personal data to be handled "in ways that people would reasonably expect and not use it in ways that have unjustified adverse effects on them.” La chiave sta nell’aggettivo “unjustified”. Perché è evidente che ogni sistema che prende decisioni, ne prenderà alcune a favore di alcuni ed altre a sfavore di altri. Un sistema che non faccia distinzioni sarebbe inutile. La domanda quindi è: come si definisce unjustified e chi decide se una scelta è unjustified? Siamo sicuri di essere in grado di deciderlo? Se la macchina avesse capacità decisionali superiori alle nostre, perché ad esempio tiene conto di molti più fattori di quanti noi umani siamo in grado di comprendere, sarebbe unjustified? — Beppe > On 17 Sep 2020, at 19:17, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 19:10:48 +0200 > From: don Luca Peyron <dluca.universitari(a)gmail.com <mailto:dluca.universitari@gmail.com>> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>> > Subject: [nexa] Big bad data: We don't trust AI to make good decisions > Message-ID: > <CAGS_u7jiyV9yTBVxcNPz9KpsNYH5RHOBvPx-f8SG9d7xH6kE1A(a)mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAGS_u7jiyV9yTBVxcNPz9KpsNYH5RHOBvPx-f8SG9d7xH6kE1A@mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > A new report from the British Computer Society (BCS), the Chartered > Institute for IT, has now revealed that more than half of UK adults (53%) > don't trust organisations that use algorithms to make decisions about them. > > https://www.zdnet.com/article/big-bad-data-we-dont-trust-ai-to-make-good-de… <https://www.zdnet.com/article/big-bad-data-we-dont-trust-ai-to-make-good-de…> > > Buona lettura > > dl > _________________________ > don Luca Peyron > Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria > Arcidiocesi di Torino > www.universitari.to.it <http://www.universitari.to.it/> > via XX settembre 83, Torino > tel. 011 5156239

5 12

Le bugie restano gratis
by don Luca Peyron Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

Niente, semplicemente da leggere... dl https://www.ilpost.it/massimomantellini/2020/09/23/le-bugie-restano-gratis/ _________________________ don Luca Peyron Direttore Ufficio per la Pastorale Universitaria Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Re: [nexa] Intelligenza artificiale e medicina (nexa Digest, Vol 137, Issue 66)
by Diego.Latella Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

Interessante. Approfitto per segnalare un articolo di non troppo tempo fa su sistemi AI per la medicina (e questioni collegate). Onestamente non mi ricordo se sia gia' passato sulla lista; se si, mi scuso per la ripetizione: Xavier Frank Is Watson for Oncology _per se_ Unreasonably Dangerous?: Making A Case for How to Prove Products Liability Based on a Flawed Artificial Intelligence Design. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 45 (2019): 273-294 (c) 2019 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics Boston University School of Law DOI: 10.1177/0098858819871109 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0098858819871109?journalCode=j… > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:11:42 +0200 > From: Tommaso Caldarelli <tommaso.caldarelli(a)gmail.com> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Intelligenza artificiale e medicina > Message-ID: > <CAAntSS9Qo3zjHCQYOT+sj-nxUG-qzdEXj+nbJkKr8oGYOZ9CCw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Buongiorno! > > Vi segnalo il primo di due articoli a uscita ravvicinata su Sanità > Informazione, testata per la quale collaboro, su argomento medicina, > algoritmi e intelligenza artificiale > > https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lavoro/intelligenza-artificiale-e-medicin… > > Ogni commento è gradito. Che ne pensate? > > Una buona giornata > > Tc > > -- > Tommaso Caldarelli > 3386765100 -- Dott. Diego Latella - Senior Researcher CNR-ISTI, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy (http:www.isti.cnr.it [1]) FM&&T Lab. (http://fmt.isti.cnr.it) http://www.isti.cnr.it/People/D.Latella - ph: +390506212982, mob: +39 348 8283101, fax: +390506212040 =================== I don't quite know whether it is especially computer science or its subdiscipline Artificial Intelligence that has such an enormous affection for euphemism. We speak so spectacularly and so readily of computer systems that understand, that see, decide, make judgments, and so on, without ourselves recognizing our own superficiality and immeasurable naivete with respect to these concepts. And, in the process of so speaking, we anesthetise our ability to evaluate the quality of our work and, what is more important, to identify and become conscious of its end use. […] One can't escape this state without asking, again and again: "What do I actually do? What is the final application and use of the products of my work?" and ultimately, "am I content or ashamed to have contributed to this use?" -- Prof. Joseph Weizenbaum ["Not without us", ACM SIGCAS 16(2-3) 2--7 - Aug. 1986] Links: ------ [1] http://www.isti.cnr.it

1 0

"Facebook Says it Will Stop Operating in Europe If Regulators Don’t Back Down"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

*Facebook Says it Will Stop Operating in Europe If Regulators Don’t Back Down** * /European regulators are cracking down on Facebook's ability to transfer data across the Atlantic. Now the tech giant is threatening to pull its services from more than 400 million European users.// / by David Gilbert September 21, 2020, 2:42pm https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/889pk3/facebook-threatens-to-pull-out-of…

4 3

Intelligenza artificiale e medicina
by Tommaso Caldarelli Sept. 23, 2020

Sept. 23, 2020

Buongiorno! Vi segnalo il primo di due articoli a uscita ravvicinata su Sanità Informazione, testata per la quale collaboro, su argomento medicina, algoritmi e intelligenza artificiale https://www.sanitainformazione.it/lavoro/intelligenza-artificiale-e-medicin… Ogni commento è gradito. Che ne pensate? Una buona giornata Tc -- Tommaso Caldarelli 3386765100

2 1