April 2023 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

reports on AI

by Benedetto Ponti

è uscito in questi giorni l'Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2023 di Stanford, https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/ poco dopo averlo sfogliato, mi è capitato sott'occhio (potenza degli algoritmi di raccomandazione) questo altro report, "An analysis of the EU’s investment in AI development" (qui <https://eticas.tech/how-public-money-is-shaping-the-future-direction-of-ai>). I dati sono interessantissimi, ed il confronto anche di più. Benedetto Ponti --

April 12, 2023

Non si sa più nulla dell’istituto italiano per l’intelligenza artificiale

by Luigi Scorca

https://www.ilpost.it/2023/04/11/istituto-italiano-intelligenza-artificiale/ Luigi

April 11, 2023

Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter

by Daniela Tafani

Non in senso stretto, visto che Emily Bender racconta di aver cercato eventuali occorrenze precedenti dei "pappagalli stocastici", non di quelli "statistici". Riconosce la differenza, amaramente, l'interessata: "'stochastic parrots' is a better phrase. One syllable fewer, better assonance. Also more mystique, since few people are sure what stochastic means" https://nitter.snopyta.org/rinireg/status/1622419446047584256 ________________________________ Da: Antonio Casilli <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paris.fr> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2023 22:03 A: Daniela Tafani; Giuseppe Attardi Cc: nexa Oggetto: Re: Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Grazie Daniela, molto interessante. Questo si contrappone all’affermazione di Emily Bender cf. questo suo tweet: https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1578829544303521797?s=46&t=S_Cb_qgO…<https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411200352089423…> ________________________________ From: Daniela <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> To: Antonio <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paris.fr>; Giuseppe <giuseppe.attardi(a)unipi.it> Cc: nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Date: Tuesday, 11 April 2023 9:24 PM CEST Subject: Re: Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Poco prima dell'articolo sui pappagalli stocastici, in un contributo su GPT-3, Regina Rini ha usato l'espressione "all-electronic statistical parrot", insieme ad altre che non hanno avuto un seguito ("prolix digital fluidities", "linguo-statistical firehose") e a qualche riflessione che resta attuale: "what does it mean that other people online can’t distinguish you from a linguo-statistical firehose?" (ho intravisto oggi notizie di applicazioni per riconoscere la "humanness") The Digital Zeitgeist Ponders Our Obsolescence by Regina Rini GPT-3’s output is still a mix of the unnervingly coherent and laughably mindless, but we are clearly another step closer to categorical trouble. Once some loquacious descendant of GPT-3 churns out reliably convincing prose, we will reprise a rusty dichotomy from the early days of computing: Is it an emergent digital selfhood or an overhyped answering machine? But that frame omits something important about how GPT-3 and other modern machine learners work. GPT-3 is not a mind, but it is also not entirely a machine. It’s something else: a statistically abstracted representation of the contents of millions of minds, as expressed in their writing. Its prose spurts from an inductive funnel that takes in vast quantities of human internet chatter: Reddit posts, Wikipedia articles, news stories. When GPT-3 speaks, it is only us speaking, a refracted parsing of the likeliest semantic paths trodden by human expression. When you send query text to GPT-3, you aren’t communing with a unique digital soul. But you are coming as close as anyone ever has to literally speaking to the zeitgeist. And that’s fun for now, even fleetingly sublime. But it will soon become mundane, and then perhaps threatening. Because we can’t be too far from the day when GPT-3’s commercialized offspring begin to swarm our digital discourse. Today’s Twitter bots and customer service autochats are primitive harbingers of conversational simulacra that will be useful, and then ubiquitous, precisely because they deploy their statistical magic to blend in among real online humans. It won’t really matter whether these prolix digital fluidities could pass an unrestricted Turing Test, because our daily interactions with them will be just like our daily interactions with most online humans: brief, task-specific, transactional. So long as we get what we came for—directions to the dispensary, an arousing flame war, some freshly dank memes—then we won’t bother testing whether our interlocutor is a fellow human or an all-electronic statistical parrot. That’s the shape of things to come. GPT-3 feasts on the corpus of online discourse and converts its carrion calories into birds of our feather. Some time from now—decades? years?—we’ll simply have come to accept that the tweets and chirps of our internet flock are an indistinguishable mélange of human originals and statistically confected echoes, just as we’ve come to accept that anyone can place a thin wedge of glass and cobalt to their ear and instantly speak across the planet. It’s marvelous. Then it’s mundane. And then it’s melancholy. Because eventually we will turn the interaction around and ask: what does it mean that other people online can’t distinguish you from a linguo-statistical firehose? What will it feel like—alienating? liberating? annihilating?—to realize that other minds are reading your words without knowing or caring whether there is any ‘you’ at all? Meanwhile the machine will go on learning, even as our inchoate techno-existential qualms fall within its training data, and even as the bots themselves begin echoing our worries back to us, and forward into the next deluge of training data. Of course, their influence won’t fall only on our technological ruminations. As synthesized opinions populate social media feeds, our own intuitive induction will draw them into our sense of public opinion. Eventually we will come to take this influence as given, just as we’ve come to self-adjust to opinion polls and Overton windows. Will expressing your views on public issues seem anything more than empty and cynical, once you’ve accepted it’s all just input to endlessly recursive semantic cannibalism? I have no idea. But if enough of us write thinkpieces about it, then GPT-4 will surely have some convincing answers. https://dailynous.com/2020/07/30/philosophers-gpt-3/#rini<https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411200352089423…> ________________________________ Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Antonio Casilli <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paris.fr> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2023 20:34 A: Giuseppe Attardi Cc: nexa Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter > PS. I LLM sono tutt’altro che Stochastic Parrots: ripetere a pappagallo i testi da cui sono stati allenati è proprio ciò che non sanno fare. Beppe, "stochastic parrot" non è questo. Timnit Gebru et al. ne parlano nel senso di un dispositivo che "haphazardly stitch[es] together sequences of linguistic forms (...), according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning". L'accento è sullo "stochastic". C'è anche un altro senso sviluppato nell'articolo: gli LLMs sono dei pappagalli stocastici perché reiterano visioni del mondo egemoniche. From: Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Message-ID: <22c6ff05-a037-f3de-68c0-83548bc4a122(a)mat.uniroma2.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" (mi pare non sia passato in lista) Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Timnit Gebru (DAIR), Emily M. Bender (University of Washington), Angelina McMillan-Major (University of Washington), Margaret Mitchell (Hugging Face) March 31, 2023 /Tl;dr: The harms from so-called AI are real and present and follow from the acts of people and corporations deploying automated systems. Regulatory efforts should focus on transparency, accountability and preventing exploitative labor practices./ [ https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… | https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… ] / -- -- EN _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201…

April 11, 2023

Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter

by Antonio Casilli

Grazie Daniela, molto interessante. Questo si contrappone all’affermazione di Emily Bender cf. questo suo tweet: https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1578829544303521797?s=46&t=S_Cb_qgO… -----Original Message----- From: Daniela <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> To: Antonio <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paris.fr>; Giuseppe <giuseppe.attardi(a)unipi.it> Cc: nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Date: Tuesday, 11 April 2023 9:24 PM CEST Subject: Re: Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Poco prima dell'articolo sui pappagalli stocastici, in un contributo su GPT-3, Regina Rini ha usato l'espressione "all-electronic statistical parrot", insieme ad altre che non hanno avuto un seguito ("prolix digital fluidities", "linguo-statistical firehose") e a qualche riflessione che resta attuale: "what does it mean that other people online can’t distinguish you from a linguo-statistical firehose?" (ho intravisto oggi notizie di applicazioni per riconoscere la "humanness") The Digital Zeitgeist Ponders Our Obsolescence by Regina Rini GPT-3’s output is still a mix of the unnervingly coherent and laughably mindless, but we are clearly another step closer to categorical trouble. Once some loquacious descendant of GPT-3 churns out reliably convincing prose, we will reprise a rusty dichotomy from the early days of computing: Is it an emergent digital selfhood or an overhyped answering machine? But that frame omits something important about how GPT-3 and other modern machine learners work. GPT-3 is not a mind, but it is also not entirely a machine. It’s something else: a statistically abstracted representation of the contents of millions of minds, as expressed in their writing. Its prose spurts from an inductive funnel that takes in vast quantities of human internet chatter: Reddit posts, Wikipedia articles, news stories. When GPT-3 speaks, it is only us speaking, a refracted parsing of the likeliest semantic paths trodden by human expression. When you send query text to GPT-3, you aren’t communing with a unique digital soul. But you are coming as close as anyone ever has to literally speaking to the zeitgeist. And that’s fun for now, even fleetingly sublime. But it will soon become mundane, and then perhaps threatening. Because we can’t be too far from the day when GPT-3’s commercialized offspring begin to swarm our digital discourse. Today’s Twitter bots and customer service autochats are primitive harbingers of conversational simulacra that will be useful, and then ubiquitous, precisely because they deploy their statistical magic to blend in among real online humans. It won’t really matter whether these prolix digital fluidities could pass an unrestricted Turing Test, because our daily interactions with them will be just like our daily interactions with most online humans: brief, task-specific, transactional. So long as we get what we came for—directions to the dispensary, an arousing flame war, some freshly dank memes—then we won’t bother testing whether our interlocutor is a fellow human or an all-electronic statistical parrot. That’s the shape of things to come. GPT-3 feasts on the corpus of online discourse and converts its carrion calories into birds of our feather. Some time from now—decades? years?—we’ll simply have come to accept that the tweets and chirps of our internet flock are an indistinguishable mélange of human originals and statistically confected echoes, just as we’ve come to accept that anyone can place a thin wedge of glass and cobalt to their ear and instantly speak across the planet. It’s marvelous. Then it’s mundane. And then it’s melancholy. Because eventually we will turn the interaction around and ask: what does it mean that other people online can’t distinguish you from a linguo-statistical firehose? What will it feel like—alienating? liberating? annihilating?—to realize that other minds are reading your words without knowing or caring whether there is any ‘you’ at all? Meanwhile the machine will go on learning, even as our inchoate techno-existential qualms fall within its training data, and even as the bots themselves begin echoing our worries back to us, and forward into the next deluge of training data. Of course, their influence won’t fall only on our technological ruminations. As synthesized opinions populate social media feeds, our own intuitive induction will draw them into our sense of public opinion. Eventually we will come to take this influence as given, just as we’ve come to self-adjust to opinion polls and Overton windows. Will expressing your views on public issues seem anything more than empty and cynical, once you’ve accepted it’s all just input to endlessly recursive semantic cannibalism? I have no idea. But if enough of us write thinkpieces about it, then GPT-4 will surely have some convincing answers. https://dailynous.com/2020/07/30/philosophers-gpt-3/#rini Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Antonio Casilli <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paris.fr> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2023 20:34 A: Giuseppe Attardi Cc: nexa Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter > PS. I LLM sono tutt’altro che Stochastic Parrots: ripetere a pappagallo i testi da cui sono stati allenati è proprio ciò che non sanno fare. Beppe, "stochastic parrot" non è questo. Timnit Gebru et al. ne parlano nel senso di un dispositivo che "haphazardly stitch[es] together sequences of linguistic forms (...), according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning". L'accento è sullo "stochastic". C'è anche un altro senso sviluppato nell'articolo: gli LLMs sono dei pappagalli stocastici perché reiterano visioni del mondo egemoniche. From: Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Message-ID: <22c6ff05-a037-f3de-68c0-83548bc4a122(a)mat.uniroma2.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" (mi pare non sia passato in lista) Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Timnit Gebru (DAIR), Emily M. Bender (University of Washington), Angelina McMillan-Major (University of Washington), Margaret Mitchell (Hugging Face) March 31, 2023 /Tl;dr: The harms from so-called AI are real and present and follow from the acts of people and corporations deploying automated systems. Regulatory efforts should focus on transparency, accountability and preventing exploitative labor practices./ [ https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… | https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… ] / -- -- EN _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201…

April 11, 2023

Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter

by Daniela Tafani

Poco prima dell'articolo sui pappagalli stocastici, in un contributo su GPT-3, Regina Rini ha usato l'espressione "all-electronic statistical parrot", insieme ad altre che non hanno avuto un seguito ("prolix digital fluidities", "linguo-statistical firehose") e a qualche riflessione che resta attuale: "what does it mean that other people online can’t distinguish you from a linguo-statistical firehose?" (ho intravisto oggi notizie di applicazioni per riconoscere la "humanness") The Digital Zeitgeist Ponders Our Obsolescence by Regina Rini GPT-3’s output is still a mix of the unnervingly coherent and laughably mindless, but we are clearly another step closer to categorical trouble. Once some loquacious descendant of GPT-3 churns out reliably convincing prose, we will reprise a rusty dichotomy from the early days of computing: Is it an emergent digital selfhood or an overhyped answering machine? But that frame omits something important about how GPT-3 and other modern machine learners work. GPT-3 is not a mind, but it is also not entirely a machine. It’s something else: a statistically abstracted representation of the contents of millions of minds, as expressed in their writing. Its prose spurts from an inductive funnel that takes in vast quantities of human internet chatter: Reddit posts, Wikipedia articles, news stories. When GPT-3 speaks, it is only us speaking, a refracted parsing of the likeliest semantic paths trodden by human expression. When you send query text to GPT-3, you aren’t communing with a unique digital soul. But you are coming as close as anyone ever has to literally speaking to the zeitgeist. And that’s fun for now, even fleetingly sublime. But it will soon become mundane, and then perhaps threatening. Because we can’t be too far from the day when GPT-3’s commercialized offspring begin to swarm our digital discourse. Today’s Twitter bots and customer service autochats are primitive harbingers of conversational simulacra that will be useful, and then ubiquitous, precisely because they deploy their statistical magic to blend in among real online humans. It won’t really matter whether these prolix digital fluidities could pass an unrestricted Turing Test, because our daily interactions with them will be just like our daily interactions with most online humans: brief, task-specific, transactional. So long as we get what we came for—directions to the dispensary, an arousing flame war, some freshly dank memes—then we won’t bother testing whether our interlocutor is a fellow human or an all-electronic statistical parrot. That’s the shape of things to come. GPT-3 feasts on the corpus of online discourse and converts its carrion calories into birds of our feather. Some time from now—decades? years?—we’ll simply have come to accept that the tweets and chirps of our internet flock are an indistinguishable mélange of human originals and statistically confected echoes, just as we’ve come to accept that anyone can place a thin wedge of glass and cobalt to their ear and instantly speak across the planet. It’s marvelous. Then it’s mundane. And then it’s melancholy. Because eventually we will turn the interaction around and ask: what does it mean that other people online can’t distinguish you from a linguo-statistical firehose? What will it feel like—alienating? liberating? annihilating?—to realize that other minds are reading your words without knowing or caring whether there is any ‘you’ at all? Meanwhile the machine will go on learning, even as our inchoate techno-existential qualms fall within its training data, and even as the bots themselves begin echoing our worries back to us, and forward into the next deluge of training data. Of course, their influence won’t fall only on our technological ruminations. As synthesized opinions populate social media feeds, our own intuitive induction will draw them into our sense of public opinion. Eventually we will come to take this influence as given, just as we’ve come to self-adjust to opinion polls and Overton windows. Will expressing your views on public issues seem anything more than empty and cynical, once you’ve accepted it’s all just input to endlessly recursive semantic cannibalism? I have no idea. But if enough of us write thinkpieces about it, then GPT-4 will surely have some convincing answers. https://dailynous.com/2020/07/30/philosophers-gpt-3/#rini ________________________________ Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Antonio Casilli <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paris.fr> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2023 20:34 A: Giuseppe Attardi Cc: nexa Oggetto: Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter > PS. I LLM sono tutt’altro che Stochastic Parrots: ripetere a pappagallo i testi da cui sono stati allenati è proprio ciò che non sanno fare. Beppe, "stochastic parrot" non è questo. Timnit Gebru et al. ne parlano nel senso di un dispositivo che "haphazardly stitch[es] together sequences of linguistic forms (...), according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning". L'accento è sullo "stochastic". C'è anche un altro senso sviluppato nell'articolo: gli LLMs sono dei pappagalli stocastici perché reiterano visioni del mondo egemoniche. From: Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Message-ID: <22c6ff05-a037-f3de-68c0-83548bc4a122(a)mat.uniroma2.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" (mi pare non sia passato in lista) Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Timnit Gebru (DAIR), Emily M. Bender (University of Washington), Angelina McMillan-Major (University of Washington), Margaret Mitchell (Hugging Face) March 31, 2023 /Tl;dr: The harms from so-called AI are real and present and follow from the acts of people and corporations deploying automated systems. Regulatory efforts should focus on transparency, accountability and preventing exploitative labor practices./ [ https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… | https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… ] / -- -- EN _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201… _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://es.sonicurlprotection-fra.com/click?PV=2&MSGID=20230411183432100201…

April 11, 2023

L'IA Potemkin (nel senso dei villaggi, non della fantozziana omonima corazzata)

by Antonio Casilli

Car* tutt*, vi segnalo questa mia intervista apparsa nella rivista Le Grand Continent. So che c'è anche una versione italiana da qualche parte, ma per ora il testo è disponibile in francese e in spagnolo. L’IA Potemkine et le futur du travail, une conversation avec Antonio Casilli https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2023/04/07/lia-potemkine-et-le-futur-du-trav… La IA Potemkin y el futuro del trabajo, una conversación con Antonio Casilli https://legrandcontinent.eu/es/2023/04/07/la-ia-potemkin-y-el-futuro-del-tr… Buona lettura, Antonio -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Telecom Paris | Institut Polytechnique de Paris Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (CNRS) Associate Member, LACI-LAP (EHESS) Associate researcher, Weizenbaum-Institut, Berlin Member, Scholarly council UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry (C2i2) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for this email send time. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not mandatory*

April 11, 2023

Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter

by Antonio Casilli

> PS. I LLM sono tutt’altro che Stochastic Parrots: ripetere a pappagallo i testi da cui sono stati allenati è proprio ciò che non sanno fare. Beppe, "stochastic parrot" non è questo. Timnit Gebru et al. ne parlano nel senso di un dispositivo che "haphazardly stitch[es] together sequences of linguistic forms (...), according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning". L'accento è sullo "stochastic". C'è anche un altro senso sviluppato nell'articolo: gli LLMs sono dei pappagalli stocastici perché reiterano visioni del mondo egemoniche. From: Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Message-ID: <22c6ff05-a037-f3de-68c0-83548bc4a122(a)mat.uniroma2.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" (mi pare non sia passato in lista) Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter Timnit Gebru (DAIR), Emily M. Bender (University of Washington), Angelina McMillan-Major (University of Washington), Margaret Mitchell (Hugging Face) March 31, 2023 /Tl;dr: The harms from so-called AI are real and present and follow from the acts of people and corporations deploying automated systems. Regulatory efforts should focus on transparency, accountability and preventing exploitative labor practices./ [ https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March2023/ | https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March2023/ ] / -- -- EN _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

April 11, 2023

Re: [nexa] Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter

by Giuseppe Attardi

April 11, 2023

Re: [nexa] ChatGPT disabled for users in Italy

by Guido Vetere

alcuni modelli linguistici pre-trainati (es. BERT-like), di provenienza generalmente accademica, sono già attualmente su piattaforme come huggingface.co, potete benissimo scaricarle con alcune si lavora ragionevolmente bene, perfino in italiano, con poco addestramento (few-shot) per compiti generativi specialistici, tipo formare una query sql da una frase interrogativa (cosa per la quale generazioni di informatici hanno versato lacrime e sangue) quello che non si può fare è 'modificarli' nel senso della tradizione open source, si possono solo 'sintonizzare' (tuning) si può certamente anche produrre language models ex novo, se si hanno abbastanza dati e risorse, il problema è che ce ne vogliono davvero tante continuo a credere che se usati in processi di generazione stocastica non si possa evitare che anche dal modello più 'puro' esca qualche enormità dunque chiedo: dobbiamo bandire l'intera pratica dei LLM oppure possiamo trovare una quadra? non fatemi stare in ansia .. :-) G. On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 at 23:55, 380° <g380(a)biscuolo.net> wrote: > Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> writes: > > [...] > > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 20:18:55 +0200 Guido Vetere wrote: > > > >> Ma se passasse questa linea dovremmo spegnere tutti i generatori > >> basati (solo) su LLM: anche se addestrati sui dati più puri del > >> mondo, la probabilità che generino 'utterances' censurabili non > >> sarebbe mai nulla. > > > > Beh non è detto: è sufficiente che ciascuno usi i LLM che realizza. > > No: che ciascuno possa (ri)utilizzare, studiare, modificare e > redistribuire copie modificate degli LLM realizzati da altri, > /liberamente/ > > [...] > > ...sì, è un discorso già sentito, negli anni '80 :-) > > Saluti, 380° > > -- > 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) > > «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, > non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» > > Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice > but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>. > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

April 11, 2023

Sugli utilizzi degli LLM per scopi criminali

by Marco A. Calamari

Un interessante saggio di Bruce Schneier sugli usi criminali e manipolatori degli LLM, che dovrebbe farci scendere ogni tanto dai ragionamenti troppo filosofici a quelli più pratici. Consigliato. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/04/llms-and-phishing.html Marco

April 11, 2023