January 2024 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

iredmail
by Stefano Quintarelli Jan. 10, 2024

Jan. 10, 2024

iredmail carino prima o poi lo dovro' provare https://www.iredmail.org/ ciao, s.

2 2

AI copyright lawsuit hinges on the legal concept of ‘fair use’ - The Washington Post
by Alberto Cammozzo Jan. 10, 2024

Jan. 10, 2024

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/04/nyt-ai-copyright-lawsu…> If a media outlet copied a bunch of New York Times stories and posted them on its site, that would probably be seen as a blatant violation of the Times’s copyright. But what about when a tech company copies those same articles, combines them with countless other copied works, and uses them to train an AI chatbot capable of conversing on almost any topic — including the ones it learned about from the Times? That’s the legal question at the heart of a lawsuit the Times filed against OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court last week, alleging that the tech firms illegally used “millions” of copyrighted Times articles to help develop the AI models behind tools such as ChatGPT and Bing. It’s the latest, and some believe the strongest, in a bevy of active lawsuits alleging that various tech and artificial intelligence companies have violated the intellectual property of media companies, photography sites, book authors and artists. Together, the cases have the potential to rattle the foundations of the booming generative AI industry, some legal experts say — but they could also fall flat. That’s because the tech firms are likely to lean heavily on a legal concept that has served them well in the past: the doctrine known as “fair use.” Broadly speaking, copyright law distinguishes between ripping off someone else’s work verbatim — which is generally illegal — and “remixing” or putting it to a new, creative use. What is confounding about AI systems, said James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and information law at Cornell University, is that in this case they seem to be doing both. Generative AI represents “this big technological transformation that can make a remixed version of anything,” Grimmelmann said. “The challenge is that these models can also blatantly memorize works they were trained on, and often produce near-exact copies,” which, he said, is “traditionally the heart of what copyright law prohibits.” From the first VCRs, which could be used to record TV shows and movies, to Google Books, which digitized millions of books, U.S. companies have convinced courts that their technological tools amounted to fair use of copyrighted works. OpenAI and Microsoft are already mounting a similar defense. “We believe that the training of AI models qualifies as a fair use, falling squarely in line with established precedents recognizing that the use of copyrighted materials by technology innovators in transformative ways is entirely consistent with copyright law,” OpenAI wrote in a filing to the U.S. Copyright Office in November. AI systems are typically “trained” on gargantuan data sets that include vast amounts of published material, much of it copyrighted. Through this training, they come to recognize patterns in the arrangement of words and pixels, which they can then draw on to assemble plausible prose and images in response to just about any prompt. Some AI enthusiasts view this process as a form of learning, not unlike an art student devouring books on Monet or a news junkie reading the Times cover-to-cover to develop their own expertise. But plaintiffs see a more quotidian process at work beneath these models’ hood: It’s a form of copying, and unauthorized copying at that. “It’s not learning the facts like a brain would learn facts,” said Danielle Coffey, chief executive of the News/Media Alliance, a trade group that represents more than 2,000 media organizations, including the Times and The Washington Post. “It’s literally spitting the words back out at you.” There are two main prongs to the New York Times’s case against OpenAI and Microsoft. First, like other recent AI copyright lawsuits, the Times argues that its rights were infringed when its articles were “scraped” — or digitally scanned and copied — for inclusion in the giant data sets that GPT-4 and other AI models were trained on. That’s sometimes called the “input” side. Second, the Times’s lawsuit cites examples in which OpenAI’s GPT-4 language model — versions of which power both ChatGPT and Bing — appeared to cough up either detailed summaries of paywalled articles, like the company’s Wirecutter product reviews, or entire sections of specific Times articles. In other words, the Times alleges, the tools violated its copyright with their “output,” too. Judges so far have been wary of the argument that training an AI model on copyrighted works — the “input” side — amounts to a violation in itself, said Jason Bloom, a partner at the law firm Haynes and Boone and the chairman of its intellectual property litigation group. “Technically, doing that can be copyright infringement, but it’s more likely to be considered fair use, based on precedent, because you’re not publicly displaying the work when you’re just ingesting and training” with it, Bloom said. (Bloom is not involved in any of the active AI copyright suits.) Fair use also can apply when the copying is done for a purpose different from simply reproducing the original work — such as to critique it or to use it for research or educational purposes, like a teacher photocopying a news article to hand out to a journalism class. That’s how Google defended Google Books, an ambitious project to scan and digitize millions of copyrighted books from public and academic libraries so that it could make their contents searchable online. The project sparked a 2005 lawsuit by the Authors Guild, which called it a “brazen violation of copyright law.” But Google argued that because it displayed only “snippets” of the books in response to searches, it wasn’t undermining the market for books but providing a fundamentally different service. In 2015, a federal appellate court agreed with Google. That precedent should work in favor of OpenAI, Microsoft and other tech firms, said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and co-director of its High Tech Law Institute. “I’m going to take the position, based on precedent, that if the outputs aren’t infringing, then anything that took place before isn’t infringing as well,” Goldman said. “Show me that the output is infringing. If it’s not, then copyright case over.” OpenAI and Microsoft are also the subject of other AI copyright lawsuits, as are rival AI firms including Meta, Stability AI and Midjourney, with some targeting text-based chatbots and others targeting image generators. So far, judges have dismissed parts of at least two cases in which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the AI’s outputs were substantially similar to their copyrighted works. In contrast, the Times’s suit provides numerous examples in which a version of GPT-4 reproduced large passages of text identical to that in Times articles in response to certain prompts. That could go a long way with a jury, should the case get that far, said Blake Reid, associate professor at Colorado Law. But if courts find that only those specific outputs are infringing, and not the use of the copyrighted material for training, he added, that could prove much easier for the tech firms to fix. OpenAI’s position is that the examples in the Times’s lawsuit are aberrations — a sort of bug in the system that caused it to cough up passages verbatim. Tom Rubin, OpenAI’s chief of intellectual property and content, said the Times appears to have intentionally manipulated its prompts to the AI system to get it to reproduce its training data. He said via email that the examples in the lawsuit “are not reflective of intended use or normal user behavior and violate our terms of use.” “Many of their examples are not replicable today,” Rubin added, “and we continually make our products more resilient to this type of misuse.” The Times isn’t the only organization that has found AI systems producing outputs that resemble copyrighted works. A lawsuit filed by Getty Images against Stability AI notes examples of its Stable Diffusion image generator reproducing the Getty watermark. And a recent blog post by AI expert Gary Marcus shows examples in which Microsoft’s Image Creator appeared to generate pictures of famous characters from movies and TV shows. Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment. The Times did not specify the amount it is seeking, although the company estimates damages to be in the “billions.” It is also asking for a permanent ban on the unlicensed use of its work. More dramatically, it asks that any existing AI models trained on Times content be destroyed. Because the AI cases represent new terrain in copyright law, it is not clear how judges and juries will ultimately rule, several legal experts agreed. While the Google Books case might work in the tech firms’ favor, the fair-use picture was muddied by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in a case involving artist Andy Warhol’s use of a photograph of the rock star Prince, said Daniel Gervais, a professor at Vanderbilt Law and director of its intellectual property program. The court found that if the copying is done to compete with the original work, “that weighs against fair use” as a defense. So the Times’s case may hinge in part on its ability to show that products like ChatGPT and Bing compete with and harm its business. “Anyone who’s predicting the outcome is taking a big risk here,” Gervais said. He said for business plaintiffs like the New York Times, one likely outcome might be a settlement that grants the tech firms a license to the content in exchange for payment. The Times spent months in talks with OpenAI and Microsoft, which holds a major stake in OpenAI, before the newspaper sued, the Times disclosed in its lawsuit. Some media companies have already struck arrangements over the use of their content. Last month, OpenAI agreed to pay German media conglomerate Axel Springer, which publishes Business Insider and Politico, to show parts of articles in ChatGPT responses. The tech company has also struck a deal with the Associated Press for access to the news service’s archives. A Times victory could have major consequences for the news industry, which has been in crisis since the internet began to supplant newspapers and magazines nearly 20 years ago. Since then, newspaper advertising revenue has been in steady decline, the number of working journalists has dropped dramatically and hundreds of communities across the country no longer have local newspapers. But even as publishers seek payment for the use of their human-generated materials to train AI, some also are publishing works produced by AI — which has prompted both backlash and embarrassment when those machine-created articles are riddled with errors. Cornell’s Grimmelmann said AI copyright cases might ultimately hinge on the stories each side tells about how to weigh the technology’s harms and benefits. “Look at all the lawsuits, and they’re trying to tell stories about how these are just plagiarism machines ripping off artists,” he said. “Look at the [AI firms’ responses], and they’re trying to tell stories about all the really interesting things these AIs can do that are genuinely new and exciting.” Reid of Colorado Law noted that tech giants may make less sympathetic defendants today for many judges and juries than they did a decade ago when the Google Books case was being decided. “There’s a reason you’re hearing a lot about innovation and open-source and start-ups” from the tech industry, he said. “There’s a race to frame who’s the David and who’s the Goliath here.”

6 8

"Posta elettronica": persi 6 Atenei in ~3 anni...
by Damiano Verzulli Jan. 10, 2024

Jan. 10, 2024

Come alcuni ricorderanno, poco meno di tre anni fa --esattamente il 14/02/2021-- fotografai lo stato delle infrastrutture di Posta Elettronica in uso nei vari Atenei del nostro Paese. Il quadro che ne emerse non era particolarmente confortante: * Google: 31 * Microsoft: 16 * Interna all’Ateneo: 19 Oggi (27/12/2023), approfittando di un po' di tempo libero, ho "aggiornato" la fotografica, prendendo in esame *ESATTAMENTE* gli stessi 66 domini di posta analizzati a suo tempo. La situazione aggiornata è la seguente: * Google: 33 * Microsoft: 20 * Interna all’Ateneo: 13 In poco meno di tre anni, abbiamo "perso" 6 atenei/istituzioni: * sissa.it * unica.it * unipa.it * unirc.it * unisannio.it * uniss.it L'articolo integrale --aggiornato con questi ultimi valori-- è disponibile on-line: https://dvblog.soabit.com/la-posta-elettronica-negli-atenei-italiani/ Bye, DV -- Damiano Verzulli e-mail:damiano@verzulli.it --- possible?ok:while(!possible){open_mindedness++} --- "...I realized that free software would not generate the kind of income that was needed. Maybe in USA or Europe, you may be able to get a well paying job as a free software developer, but not here [in Africa]..." -- Guido Sohne - 1973-2008 http://ole.kenic.or.ke/pipermail/skunkworks/2008-April/005989.html

14 25

Liberta' di panorama alla Biblioteca di Settimo - 13 gennaio
by Eleonora Panto Jan. 9, 2024

Jan. 9, 2024

Sabato 13 gennaio 2024*, tra le 10.00 e le 13.00, si svolgerà presso la Biblioteca Archimede di Settimo Torinese* (Piazza Campidoglio, 50) la premiazione del concorso *Wiki Loves Monuments edizione Piemonte e Valle d'Aosta*. La premiazione sarà anticipata da un incontro sul tema della *libertà di panorama* e della *digitalizzazione del patrimonio culturale in cui saranno illustrati casi concreti di valorizzazione. * Il programma completo della mattina: ore 10.00 Presentazione di Wiki Loves Monuments Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta 2023: dal concorso alla mostra ore 10.10 saluti: per la Biblioteca Archimede di Settimo, Augusta Giovannoli e Franco Orsola ore 10.20 *La libertà di panorama e il libero riuso delle immagini dei beni culturali: la lunga strada verso il riconoscimento di un bene comune*. Simone Aliprandi (avvocato) dialoga con Marco Chemello (Wikimedia Italia) con interventi di Elena Marangoni, Elisabetta Tarasco, Lianna D’Amato, Eleonora Pantò e Oriana Bozzarelli ore 11.30 esperienze *Patrimonio culturale condiviso: nuovi paradigmi per la cura e la valorizzazione delle collezioni *Annamaria Marras (Università di Torino e ICOM Italia) a seguire proiezione del video Open Access al Museo: L'esempio del Museo Egizio ore 11.50 esperienze *Quando la condivisione della conoscenza diventa bene comune: le buone pratiche delle Biblioteche Civiche* Torinesi Cecilia Cognigni ore 12.15 pillole di fotografia *La Fotografia e l’arte di vedere. Due secoli di sguardi che incontrano l’istante* Paola Mongelli (fotografa e artista) ore 12,30 Premiazione ore 13 Aperitivo qui è possibile registrarsi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_in_Italy/Pi… Vi aspettiamo -- ================================================= Eleonora Pantò - 377 3567615 Lapilli <https://eleonorapanto.substack.com/> è la mia newsletter su educazione e digitale www.associazionedschola.it www.puntopanto.it | @epanto <https://twitter.com/epanto>

1 0

Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - Experiments with Midjourney and DALL-E 3 show a copyright minefield
by Enrico Nardelli Jan. 8, 2024

Jan. 8, 2024

https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright Summary It seems all but certain that generative AI developers like OpenAI and Midjourney have trained their image-generation systems on copyrighted materials. Neither company has been transparent about this; Midjourney went so far as to ban us three times for investigating the nature of their training materials. Both OpenAI and Midjourney are fully capable of producing materials that appear to infringe on copyright and trademarks. These systems do not inform users when they do so. They do not provide any information about the provenance of the images they produce. Users may not know, when they produce an image, whether they are infringing. Unless and until someone comes up with a technical solution that will either accurately report provenance or automatically filter out the vast majority of copyright violations, the only ethical solution is for generative AI systems to limit their training to data they have properly licensed. Image-generating systems should be required to license the art used for training, just as streaming services are required to license their music and video. We hope that our findings (and similar findings from others who have begun to test related scenarios) will lead generative AI developers to document their data sources more carefully, to restrict themselves to data that is properly licensed, to include artists in the training data only if they consent, and to compensate artists for their work. In the long run, we hope that software will be developed that has great power as an artistic tool, but that doesn’t exploit the art of nonconsenting artists. Although we have not gone into it here, we fully expect that similar issues will arise as generative AI is applied to other fields, such as music generation. Following up on the New York Times lawsuit, our results suggest that generative AI systems may regularly produce plagiaristic outputs, both written and visual, without transparency or compensation, in ways that put undue burdens on users and content creators. We believe that the potential for litigation may be vast, and that the foundations of the entire enterprise may be built on ethically shaky ground. -- -- EN https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html ====================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Presidente di "Informatics Europe" Direttore del Laboratorio Nazionale "Informatica e Scuola" del CINI Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma home page: https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: https://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it online meeting: https://blue.meet.garr.it/b/enr-y7f-t0q-ont ====================================================== --

1 0

Re: [nexa] padre Benanti sostituisce Amato alla commissione algoritmi
by Giuseppe Attardi Jan. 8, 2024

Jan. 8, 2024

Col termine “algoretica” Benanti ci marcia: nei discorsi di Giorgia Meloni all’ONU e altrove dice che bisogna “adottare l’algoretica, ossia dare un’etica agli algoritmi.” Ma Benanti stesso scrive che ciò non è possibile. Quando gli ho fatto notare che le sue opinioni vengono fraintese, ha alzato le braccia e ha detto: “dovrò scrivere un altro libro.” Comunque di commissioni su AI ce ne sono state ormai diverse: ogni governo fa le sue. In ogni caso le loro raccomandazioni sono sempre disattese. L’unica che riuscimmo a fare adottare fu la creazione di un Dottorato Nazionale di Intelligenza Artificiale, il primo a luvello nazionale in qualunque disciplina con 20 milioni che furono erogati dall’allora ministro Fioramonti, una settimana prima di dimettersi. Da allora ogni anno vengono erogate 200 borse di dottorato, molto apprezzate dagli studenti e adesso rilanciate sui fondi PNRR. — Beppe > On 7 Jan 2024, at 16:34, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > From: Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> > To: Maria Chiara Pievatolo <mariachiara.pievatolo(a)unipi.it>, > "nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] padre Benanti sostituisce Amato alla commissione > algoritmi > Message-ID: <8a8e15e320c447438bf17d158d6d4b0a(a)unipi.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Andrea Capocci su Il manifesto di oggi: > > "Dalla sua Benanti ha un atteggiamento critico ma aperto all’intelligenza artificiale, che non > pone la Chiesa ai margini del dibattito. «Abbiamo bisogno di un’algor-etica, ovvero di un > modo che renda computabili le valutazioni di bene e di male» è il suo vasto programma. È > anche la linea ribadita nel messaggio di Capodanno da Francesco, che ha voluto il frate > nerd nella Pontificia Accademia della Vita. Soprattutto, è una posizione che non infastidisce > i colossi del Big Tech con cui Meloni non cerca alcuno scontro. Spostare l’attenzione sul > piano etico, infatti, mette in secondo piano i rapporti di forza economici su cui si fonda il > capitalismo delle piattaforme e che reclamerebbero interventi sul piano fiscale, della > privacy e del diritto del lavoro, più che su quello della morale." > > https://ilmanifesto.it/paolo-benanti-il-frate-nerd-fervente-militante-anti-… > ________________________________________ > Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Maria Chiara Pievatolo <mariachiara.pievatolo(a)unipi.it> > Inviato: domenica 7 gennaio 2024 15:06 > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Oggetto: Re: [nexa] padre Benanti sostituisce Amato alla commissione algoritmi > >>> On 07/01/24 14:49, Antonio wrote: >>> Miracoli dell’algoretica >> >> "Padre Benanti ha un pedigree invidiabile: è uno specialista di etica delle tecnologie, membro del Comitato sull’intelligenza artificiale delle Nazioni Unite e consigliere di Papa Francesco su tutto ciò che si lega alle IA. Allo stesso tempo, è opportuno ricordare che Benanti si trovi ora in una situazione molto particolare: è a capo della Commissione Algoritmi, ma il suo nome figura anche all’interno del comitato tecnico voluto da Butti. A questo punto non è chiaro se la decisione di mettere il francescano a capo del team voluto da Barachini finirà con l’uniformare le posizioni delle due Commissioni – cosa che renderebbe ridondante l’esistenza di due gruppi separati – o se l’uomo di Chiesa si troverà a improvvisare gesta goldoniane che possano promuovere i propri obiettivi a discapito degli interessi dei due padroni." >> > > Da > https://www.ilsecoloxix.it/italia/2024/01/03/news/il_dubbio_che_serve_allai… > > «Un giudice inglese molto autorevole, Lord Moulton, in un discorso a > fine carriera ha affermato che l’etica è tutto ciò che non è esigibile > per legge. Sul Titanic che stava affondando qualcuno ha detto “prima le > donne e i bambini”, e hanno mandato prima le signore e i piccoli: quello > era lo spazio dell’etica, lo spazio di civiltà. Ecco, noi dobbiamo > edificare un nuovo strato di civiltà che abbia la funzione di cuscinetto > etico: così si potrà gestire l’Ai nel migliore dei modi possibile». > > A prescindere dall'antropomorfismo dell'inizio dell'intervista, trovo il > paragone col Titanic piuttosto inquietante, per i motivi discussi qui: > > https://poliversity.it/@mcp/111708537887540819 > > E buon anno, > MCP

1 0

American Dialect Society Selects “enshittification” as 2023 Word of the Year
by Daniela Tafani Jan. 8, 2024

Jan. 8, 2024

The American Dialect Society, in its 34th annual words-of-the-year vote, selected “enshittification” as the Word of the Year for 2023. More than three hundred attendees took part in the deliberations and voting, in an event hosted in conjunction with the Linguistic Society of America’s annual meeting. The term enshittification became popular in 2023 after it was used in a blog post by author Cory Doctorow, who used it to describe how digital platforms can become worse and worse. “Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification,” Doctorow wrote on his Pluralistic blog. Presiding at the Jan. 6 voting session were Ben Zimmer, chair of the ADS New Words Committee and language columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and Dr. Kelly Elizabeth Wright of Virginia Tech, data czar of the New Words Committee. “Enshittification is a sadly apt term for how our online lives have become gradually degraded,” Zimmer said. “From the time that it first appeared in Doctorow’s posts and articles, the word had all the markings of a successful neologism, being instantly memorable and adaptable to a variety of contexts. [...] AI-RELATED WORD THE YEAR (ad-hoc category) stochastic parrot: large language model that can generate plausible synthetic text without having any understanding https://americandialect.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2023-Word-of-the-Yea…

2 1

MEMENTO | 168° Mercoledì di Nexa | 10 gennaio 2024, ore 17.00
by Valeria Bergantino Jan. 8, 2024

Jan. 8, 2024

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì 10 gennaio*, alle ore 17.00, si terrà il *168° Mercoledì di Nexa* con un incontro dal titolo /*"*//*L’architetto e l’oracolo. Forme digitali del sapere da Wikipedia a ChatGPT*//*"*/. Ospite dell'incontro: *Gino Roncaglia* (Università degli Studi Roma Tre)/*.*/ _L'incontro si terrà IN PRESENZA e ONLINE._ _SEDE FISICA_ dell'incontro: Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano). Per accedere alla sala si raccomanda di suonare al citofono *Portineria* e di seguire le indicazioni segnalate lungo il percorso. QUI <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci. _STANZA VIRTUALE_ dell'incontro: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent Maggiori informazioni alla pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-168 <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-168> Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Officer Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ <https://nexa.polito.it/> mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it <mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

1 0

New work on the digital platforms-military nexus
by Dario Guarascio Jan. 6, 2024

Jan. 6, 2024

Dear colleagues, we are pleased to share our new work investigating the digital platforms-military nexus 'Blurring boundaries: an analysis of the digital platforms-military nexus' <https://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2023-47.pdf> The working paper is attached Many thanks Kind regards Dario Guarascio -- *Dario Guarascio* Dipartimento di Economia e Diritto, Sapienza Università di Roma <http://www.uniroma1.it/strutture/dipartimenti> Via del Castro Laurenziano n° 9, 00161 Roma Edificio A (6° piano) -ala B, stanza n° 606 E-mail: dario.guarascio(a)uniroma1.it <nome.cognome(a)uniroma1.it> *Sito web* italiano - https://sites.google.com/a/uniroma1.it/darioguarascio/ inglese - https://sites.google.com/a/uniroma1.it/darioguarascio-eng/

2 1

Call for participation: Undone Computer Science, Nantes, 5-7 Feb 2024
by Norberto Patrignani Jan. 4, 2024

Jan. 4, 2024

penso sia di interesse per la lista ciao, Norberto ------------------------- https://undonecs.sciencesconf.org/ . . . The goal of our conference is to provide an opportunity to pause and reflect on the *epistemological and ethical aspects of computer science*. We propose as a theme the concept of undone science [1]: the intriguing yet vital notion that areas of research may remain incomplete, overlooked, or unfunded despite being found worthy of exploration by some—and the exploration into the causes of these situations. [1] Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. J. (2010). Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909345836

1 0

Re: [nexa] The EU should support Ireland’s bold move to regulate Big Tech
by Giuseppe Attardi Jan. 2, 2024

Jan. 2, 2024

Sono sostanzialmente d’accordo sulle considerazioni di Giacomo, sulla scarsa efficacia della proposta, ma principalmente sul fatto che la profilazione per la pubblicità mirata (chiamarla recommender system è un lurido eufemismo) è una questione che le Big Tech si sono già attrezzate per superare. Ad esempio Google ha lanciato i Topics, che sono categorie di interessi, a cui i venditori sottoscrivono per inviare i loro messaggi. Gli utenti ricevono messaggi che riguardano topics di loro interesse, al di fuori di una precisa profilazione delle loro caratteristiche personali. Google controlla la piattaforma che gestisce l’accoppiamento tra Tooics e utenti, aumentando così ulteriirmente il suo dominio sul settore del digital advertizing. L’unica vera ed efficace iniziativa sarebbe quella di colpirli nel portafoglio, ossia, come propone il nobel Paul Romer, tassando in maniera altamente progressiva (fino al 90%), i redditi da pubblicità fornita a terzi. Questo darebbe una spinta verso servizi in abbonamento, in cui gli utenti pagano per i servizi che ricevono, anziché siano terzi a pagare per far vedere la loro pubblicità. Tra l’altro, l’efficacia della pubblicità mirata è alquanto controversa, è principalmente un argomento usato per vendere le inserzioni a un prezzo più alto. — Beppe > From: Giacomo Tesio <giacomo(a)tesio.it> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it, Daniela Tafani > <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it>, "nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" > <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] The EU should support Ireland’s bold move to > regulate Big Tech > Message-ID: <B8302C34-0495-438B-83CA-6700FE991113(a)tesio.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Salve Daniela, > > in un ottica cibernetica, la proposta irlandese cerca di ridurre l'efficacia sociale > di alcuni attuatori dei BigTech senza intervenire sugli altri componenti di questi > agenti cibernetici (controllore, sensori e altri attuatori). > > Per confronto, l'applicazione del GDPR ai BigTech ne accecherebbe i sensori. > > In sé non è una proposta priva di buon senso (in una democrazia ci si chiederebbe > perché non sia già Legge, ma le colonie plutocratiche funzionano diversamente), > ma per analizzarne l'efficacia potenziale bisogna considerare il sistema cibernetico > in cui tale norma andrebbe ad operare nel suo complesso. > > > Tale norma affida ai cittadini la possibilità di scegliere se rinunciare alle dosi gratuite km0 > di dopamina/serotonina cui sono stati assuefatti, liberandosi dell'influenza dei GAFAM > esercitano su di loro e sul proprio Paese > attraverso uno specifico canale (le raccomandazioni "algoritmiche"). > > I cittadini però sono agenti cibernetici con risorse infinitamente inferiori a quelle > dei GAFAM: sensori (naso, occhi, orecchie..) e attuatori (braccia, gambe..) a corto raggio, > ed un centro di controllo che non dispone delle conoscenze necessarie a concepire ancor > prima di affrontare questo tipo di controllo sociale statistico. > > Dall'altro lato abbiamo decine di migliaia di informatici, psicologi, sociologi persino > rinomati filosofi al soldo delle BigTech che dispongono di milliardi di sensori, exabyte > di dati personali dettagliatissimi e una potenza di calcolo senza precedenti nella storia umana. > > E i cittadini si confrontano con questi agenti cibernetici individualmente. > > > La proposta irlandese, dunque, non raggiungerebbe gli obiettivi dichiarati più > di quanto non li abbia raggiunti, ad oggi, il GDPR. > > Sperare che individui sorvegliati attentamente 24h si 24, 7 giorni su 7, non possano > essere spinte a cliccare sul pulsante di opt-in è come sperare che un tossico-dipendente > interrompa l'uso delle sostanze da cui dipende semplicemente perché gli viene chiesto > di fare un click in più. > > > Vietare l'uso aziendale dei suggestion systems avrebbe senso. > Renderlo opt-in temo sia solo un blando palliativo per una democrazia morente. > > > A pensar məle si fa peccato, ma alla luce di tale analisi, non mi sorprende che un Paese > dipendente dai soldi delle BigTech abbia proposto questa soluzione. > > Chi l'ha imboccato, avrà fatto bene i suoi calcoli e l'avrà considerata una buona tattica elusiva > rispetto a normative efficaci. > > > Giacomo > che spera di ricevere obiezioni convincenti... che lo rincuorino sul futuro. > > > Il 31 Dicembre 2023 18:05:06 UTC, Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> ha scritto: >> The EU should support Ireland’s bold move to regulate Big Tech >> by Zephyr Teachout and Roger McNamee >> >> Dublin, Ireland, was stunned a month ago by riots that transformed its downtown into chaos, the worst rioting in decades, stemming from far-right online rumors about an attack on children.  >> >> The riots, like Jan. 6, appear to be a direct outgrowth of the amplification ecosystem supported by social media networks such as TikTok, Google’s YouTube and Meta’s Instagram, which likely keep their European headquarters in Dublin for tax reasons.  >> >> Ireland, long ridiculed for bowing to Big Tech, has now come out with a powerful proposal to address the problems of algorithmic amplification. Ireland set up Coimisiún na Meán, a new enforcer, this year to set rules for digital platforms. >> >> It has proposed a simple, easily enforceable rule that could change the game: All recommender systems based on intimately profiling people should be turned off by default.  >> >> In practice, that means that the big platforms cannot automatically run algorithms that use information about a person’s political views, sex life, health or ethnicity. A person will be able to switch an algorithm on, but those toxic algorithms will no longer be on by default. Users will still have access to algorithmic amplification, but they will have to opt in to get it. >> >> Today, algorithms feed each user different information. They derive their power from the trove of personal data that platforms acquire about users, data that enables the identification and exploitation of emotional weak points, all to maximize engagement. >> >> Platforms do not acknowledge responsibility for downstream consequences. Some users respond best to cat videos, others to hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories. For many, the response to harmful content is involuntary, driven by flight or fight. Either way, users spend more time on the platform, which allows the company to make more money by showing them ads. >> >> Artificially amplifying outrage may be lucrative, but it carries a terrible cost. Recommender systems enable to migrate from the fringe to the mainstream. An investigation revealed that Meta’s algorithms were key contributors to the murderous hate that cost thousands of people their lives in Myanmar’s 2017 Rohingya genocide.  >> >> Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, revealed in 2021 that Meta had known the danger of its algorithm for years. As long ago as 2016, Meta’s internal research had reported that “64 percent of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools.” >> >> It continued: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.”  >> >> When 37,000 people allowed researchers to monitor their YouTube experience, nearly all the nasty videos they had encountered were pushed into their feed by YouTube’s algorithm. An experiment using simulated users found that Facebook, Instagram and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, recommended antisemitic and conspiracy content to test users as young as 14 years old.   >> >> Earlier this year, the surgeon general spoke about the danger of algorithms that promote suicide and self-harm. A recent experiment by Amnesty International proves the point: TikTok’s algorithm recommended videos encouraging suicide to a test user posing as a 13-year-old only an hour after the account was created.  >> >> Recommender systems didn’t really take hold until 2010, and we’ve tried trusting the Big Tech platforms, but 13 years into the experiment, with plenty of data showing harm, we cannot trust technology companies to regulate themselves in the public interest.  >> >> We do not want the government to be in the business of sorting through what is and is not harmful if amplified. The brilliance of the Ireland model is that it offers a way forward: rules that are content-neutral, giving users control of one critical aspect of their online experience. >> >> After years of being a tax haven for Big Tech, Ireland is now offering the world a groundbreaking rule to protect democracy, public health and public safety. In under nine months, Coimisiún na Meán has gone from initial launch to tackling the machine at the heart of the disinformation crisis. >> >> The rule is necessary because current European Union regulations aren’t working and the new Digital Services Act is not designed to tackle the core problem. Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, tech firms are already supposed to get a person’s “explicit” (two-step) consent to process inferences about their political views, sexuality, religion, ethnicity or health. Several complaints that the big firms have failed to seek or receive this consent have not been resolved years after being brought. But for over five years, Big Tech’s primary General Data Protection Regulation authority, which is in Ireland, failed to notice or act.  >> >> Europe often trumpets its regulatory leadership in the world. But the so-called “Brussels Effect” of other countries heeding its rules began to dissipate when Europe failed to enforce its most famous law: the General Data Protection Regulation. The European Commission is understandably focused on the Digital Services Act, which goes into effect next month, but EU policymakers should welcome the new Irish rules. >> >> Coimisiún na Meán’s bold move would ultimately make the Digital Services Act far more successful. Europe and the Irish government are stepping up at last to regulate harmful technology products. Social media may become social again.  >> >> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4380369-the-eu-should-support-irelan…

2 1

Una macchina può essere “intelligente”?
by don Luca Peyron Jan. 2, 2024

Jan. 2, 2024

Considerazioni filosofiche Buona lettura dl https://www.benecomune.net/rivista/numeri/ia-nuove-tecnologie/una-macchina-… _________________________ don Luca Peyron Pastorale Universitaria - Apostolato Digitale Arcidiocesi di Torino www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

FWD: Re: Problemi dei server email indipendenti, era: "Posta elettronica": persi 6 Atenei in ~3 anni...
by M. Fioretti Jan. 2, 2024

Jan. 2, 2024

----- Forwarded message from "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> ----- Subject: Re: [nexa] Problemi dei server email indipendenti, era: "Posta elettronica": persi 6 Atenei in ~3 anni... From: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 11:25:35 +0100 To: Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> Reply-To: "M. Fioretti" <mfioretti(a)nexaima.net> In-Reply-To: <fd3146c9-a302-45a3-9304-1e2d5f7b539f(a)mat.uniroma2.it> On Mon, Jan 01, 2024 12:57:18 PM +0100, Enrico Nardelli wrote: > Aggiungo un paio di articoli che sono riuscito a ritrovare sulle difficoltà > di self-hosting della posta elettronica. Descrivono un panorama abbastanza > preoccupante. premessa: mi scuso per non averlo evidenziato meglio prima, ma il mio messaggio iniziale, link inclusi, si riferisce a server indipendenti di SINGOLI o PICCOLE organizzazioni, < 20 utenti, in cui l'amministratore e' uno degli utenti stessi, che lo fa "part time" insieme a mille altre cose. > > In ogni caso --e concludo-- per poter "vedere" queste problematiche.... > > devi quantomeno affacciarti a contesti decisamente "estesi": fin quando > > hai qualche decina di caselle afferenti ad utenti che --piu' o meno-- > > hanno poche e simili abitutini.... il mondo (dell'SMTP) ti sembrera' > > sempre "tranquillo" :-) manco per niente, magari fosse cosi'. Al livello di cui parlo io, che e' quello FONDAMENTALE se ci interessano accesso democratico alla rete, mancanza di sorveglianza (1) eccetera il panorama E' preoccupante eccome, i link miei e questi forniti da Enrico: > Rant against centralising e-mail in big-tech silos, and breaking the > internet in the process > https://proycon.anaproy.nl/posts/rant-against-centralising-e-mail/ > > After self-hosting my email for twenty-three years I have thrown in the > towel. The oligopoly has won > https://cfenollosa.com/blog/after-self-hosting-my-email-for-twenty-three-ye… sono la condizione standard mia e di tantissimi come me, che tengono duro solo per principio. E comunque, se vogliono mettere su una newsletter (vedi signature) DEVONO far passare via Substack o simili se' stessi e tutti i loro subscriber, per non parlare al vento. Anche perche' il problema non sono mica solo i grandi provider alla gmail che ti bloccano in maniera imprevedibile. Sono anche i TANTI amministratori email "professionisti", di questa o quella organizzazione con cui DEVI scambiare email per mangiare, che per incompetenza o sovraccarico di lavoro ti bloccano perche' o non sanno proprio configurare i filtri antispam/DKIM eccetera, o li aggiornano ogni 5 anni in mezzo a diecimila altri impegni. (1) almeno dal 2014: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-has-al… Marco -- https://mfioretti.substack.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Please help me write my NEXT MILLION WORDS for digital awareness: https://stop.zona-m.net/2022/12/please-help-me-share-my-next-million-words-…

1 0

The EU should support Ireland’s bold move to regulate Big Tech
by Daniela Tafani Jan. 2, 2024

Jan. 2, 2024

The EU should support Ireland’s bold move to regulate Big Tech by Zephyr Teachout and Roger McNamee Dublin, Ireland, was stunned a month ago by riots that transformed its downtown into chaos, the worst rioting in decades, stemming from far-right online rumors about an attack on children.  The riots, like Jan. 6, appear to be a direct outgrowth of the amplification ecosystem supported by social media networks such as TikTok, Google’s YouTube and Meta’s Instagram, which likely keep their European headquarters in Dublin for tax reasons.  Ireland, long ridiculed for bowing to Big Tech, has now come out with a powerful proposal to address the problems of algorithmic amplification. Ireland set up Coimisiún na Meán, a new enforcer, this year to set rules for digital platforms. It has proposed a simple, easily enforceable rule that could change the game: All recommender systems based on intimately profiling people should be turned off by default.  In practice, that means that the big platforms cannot automatically run algorithms that use information about a person’s political views, sex life, health or ethnicity. A person will be able to switch an algorithm on, but those toxic algorithms will no longer be on by default. Users will still have access to algorithmic amplification, but they will have to opt in to get it. Today, algorithms feed each user different information. They derive their power from the trove of personal data that platforms acquire about users, data that enables the identification and exploitation of emotional weak points, all to maximize engagement. Platforms do not acknowledge responsibility for downstream consequences. Some users respond best to cat videos, others to hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories. For many, the response to harmful content is involuntary, driven by flight or fight. Either way, users spend more time on the platform, which allows the company to make more money by showing them ads. Artificially amplifying outrage may be lucrative, but it carries a terrible cost. Recommender systems enable to migrate from the fringe to the mainstream. An investigation revealed that Meta’s algorithms were key contributors to the murderous hate that cost thousands of people their lives in Myanmar’s 2017 Rohingya genocide.  Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, revealed in 2021 that Meta had known the danger of its algorithm for years. As long ago as 2016, Meta’s internal research had reported that “64 percent of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools.” It continued: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.”  When 37,000 people allowed researchers to monitor their YouTube experience, nearly all the nasty videos they had encountered were pushed into their feed by YouTube’s algorithm. An experiment using simulated users found that Facebook, Instagram and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, recommended antisemitic and conspiracy content to test users as young as 14 years old.   Earlier this year, the surgeon general spoke about the danger of algorithms that promote suicide and self-harm. A recent experiment by Amnesty International proves the point: TikTok’s algorithm recommended videos encouraging suicide to a test user posing as a 13-year-old only an hour after the account was created.  Recommender systems didn’t really take hold until 2010, and we’ve tried trusting the Big Tech platforms, but 13 years into the experiment, with plenty of data showing harm, we cannot trust technology companies to regulate themselves in the public interest.  We do not want the government to be in the business of sorting through what is and is not harmful if amplified. The brilliance of the Ireland model is that it offers a way forward: rules that are content-neutral, giving users control of one critical aspect of their online experience. After years of being a tax haven for Big Tech, Ireland is now offering the world a groundbreaking rule to protect democracy, public health and public safety. In under nine months, Coimisiún na Meán has gone from initial launch to tackling the machine at the heart of the disinformation crisis. The rule is necessary because current European Union regulations aren’t working and the new Digital Services Act is not designed to tackle the core problem. Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, tech firms are already supposed to get a person’s “explicit” (two-step) consent to process inferences about their political views, sexuality, religion, ethnicity or health. Several complaints that the big firms have failed to seek or receive this consent have not been resolved years after being brought. But for over five years, Big Tech’s primary General Data Protection Regulation authority, which is in Ireland, failed to notice or act.  Europe often trumpets its regulatory leadership in the world. But the so-called “Brussels Effect” of other countries heeding its rules began to dissipate when Europe failed to enforce its most famous law: the General Data Protection Regulation. The European Commission is understandably focused on the Digital Services Act, which goes into effect next month, but EU policymakers should welcome the new Irish rules. Coimisiún na Meán’s bold move would ultimately make the Digital Services Act far more successful. Europe and the Irish government are stepping up at last to regulate harmful technology products. Social media may become social again.  https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4380369-the-eu-should-support-irelan…

3 3