November 2024 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

we need a pro-human agenda for AI

by alessandro marzocchi

Abbiamo bisogno di *humanware*, traduco liberamente Daron Acemoglu. L'IA, scrive Acemoglu, è una tecnologia dell'informazione. Vero ma la prima prevale sulla seconda, si ripropone il tema del Fedro di Platone, abbiamo impiegato due millenni e mezzo per far sì che la scrittura diventasse uno strumento del genere umano, tanto c'è voluto per sconfiggere quasi totalmente l'analfabetismo. Acemoglu afferma anche che c'è da vedere quanto rapidamente cambieranno le cose ed a vantaggio di chi. Certo è lenta, *meglio se accompagnata da azioni più rapide*, ma la soluzione è l'*alfabetizzazione digitale* che mi pare anche il tema sottostante a recenti interventi in Nexa: proviamo ad andare avanti? Cordialmente. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) * * * https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/ai-and-agi-designed-to-replace-wo… The World Needs a Pro-Human AI Agenda Nov 29, 2024 - Daron Acemoglu Judging by the current paradigm in the technology industry, we cannot rule out the worst of all possible worlds: none of the transformative potential of AI, but all of the labor displacement, misinformation, and manipulation. But it’s not too late to change course. BOSTON – These are uncertain and confusing times. Not only are we contending with pandemics, climate change, societal aging in major economies, and rising geopolitical tensions, but artificial intelligence is poised to change the world as we know it. What remains to be seen is how quickly things will change and for whose benefit. If you listen to industry insiders or technology reporters at leading newspapers, you might think artificial general intelligence (AGI) – AI technologies that can perform any human cognitive task – is just around the corner. Accordingly, there is much debate about whether these amazing capabilities will make us prosperous beyond our wildest dreams (with less hyperbolic observers estimating more than 1-2% faster GDP growth), or instead bring about the end of human civilization, with superintelligent AI models becoming our masters. But if you look at what is going on in the real economy, you will not find any break with the past so far. There is no evidence yet of AI delivering revolutionary productivity benefits. Contrary to what many technologists promised, we still need radiologists (more than before, in fact), journalists, paralegals, accountants, office workers, and human drivers. As I noted recently, we should not expect much more than about 5% of what humans do to be replaced by AI over the next decade. It will take significantly longer for AI models to acquire the judgment, multi-dimensional reasoning abilities, and the social skills necessary for most jobs, and for AI and computer vision technologies to advance to the point where they can be combined with robots to perform high-precision physical tasks (such as manufacturing and construction). Of course, these are predictions, and predictions can always be wrong. With industry insiders becoming even more vocal about the pace of progress, perhaps game-changing AI breakthroughs will come sooner than expected. But the history of AI is replete with ambitious predictions by insiders. In the mid-1950s, Marvin Minsky, arguably the grandfather of AI, predicted that machines would surpass humans within just a few years, and when it didn’t happen, he remained adamant. In 1970, he was still insisting that, “In from three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being. I mean a machine that will be able to read Shakespeare, grease a car, play office politics, tell a joke, have a fight. At that point the machine will begin to educate itself with fantastic speed. In a few months it will be at genius level and a few months after that its powers will be incalculable.” Similarly optimistic predictions have recurred since then, only to be abandoned in periodic “AI winters.” Could this time be different? To be sure, generative AI’s capabilities far exceed anything that the industry has produced before. But that does not mean that the industry’s expected timelines are correct. AI developers have an interest in creating the impression of imminent revolutionary breakthroughs, in order to stoke demand and attract investors. But even a slower pace of progress is cause for concern, given the damage that AI can already do: deepfakes, voter and consumer manipulation, and mass surveillance are just the tip of the iceberg. AI can also be leveraged for large-scale automation, even when such uses make little sense. We already have examples of digital technologies being introduced into workplaces without a clear idea of how they will increase productivity, let alone boost existing workers’ productivity. With all the hype surrounding AI, many businesses are feeling the pressure to jump on the bandwagon before they know how AI can help them. Such trend-chasing has costs. In my work with Pascual Restrepo, we show that so-so automation represents the worst of both worlds. If a technology is not yet capable of increasing productivity by much, deploying it extensively to replace human labor across a variety of tasks yields all pain and no gain. In my own forecast – where AI replaces about 5% of jobs over the next decade – the implications for inequality are quite limited. But if hype prevails and companies adopt AI for jobs that cannot be done as well by machines, we may get higher inequality without much of a compensatory boost to productivity. We therefore cannot rule out the worst of all possible worlds: none of AI’s transformative potential, but all of the labor displacement, misinformation, and manipulation. This would be tragic, not only because of the negative effects on workers and on social and political life, but also because it would represent a huge missed opportunity. Progress for Whom? It is both technically feasible and socially desirable to have a different type of AI – one with applications that complement workers, protect our data and privacy, improve our information ecosystem, and strengthen democracy. AI is an information technology. Whether in its predictive form (such as the recommendation engines on social-media platforms) or its generative form (large language models), its function is to sift through massive amounts of information and identify relevant patterns. This capability is a perfect antidote to what ails us. We live in an age where information is abundant, but useful information is scarce. Everything that you could want is on the internet (along with many things you don’t want), but good luck finding what you need for a specific job or purpose. Useful information drives productivity growth, and as David Autor, Simon Johnson, and I have argued, it is more important than ever in today’s economy. Many occupations – from nurses and educators to electricians, plumbers, blue-collar workers, and other modern craft workers – are hampered by the lack of specific information and training to deal with increasingly complex problems. Why are some students falling behind? Which equipment and vehicles need preemptive maintenance? How can we detect faulty functioning in complex products such as airplanes? This is exactly the kind of information AI can provide. When applied to such problems, AI can deliver much larger productivity gains than those envisioned in my own meager forecast. If AI is used for automation, it will replace workers; but if it is used to provide better information to workers, it will increase the demand for their services, and thus their earnings. Unfortunately, three formidable barriers are blocking us from this path. The first is the fixation on AGI. Dreams of superintelligent machines are pushing the industry to ignore the real potential of AI as an information technology that can help workers. Accurate knowledge in the relevant domain is what matters, but this is not what the industry has been investing in. Chatbots that can write Shakespearean sonnets will not empower electricians to perform sophisticated new tasks. But if you genuinely believe that AGI is near, why bother helping electricians? The problem is not just the obsession with AGI. As a general principle, tools should do things that humans are not good at doing efficiently. This is what hammers and calculators do, and it is what the internet could have done if it had not been corrupted by social media. But the tech industry has adopted the opposite perspective, favoring digital tools that can substitute for humans rather than complementing them. This is partly because many tech leaders underappreciate human talent and exaggerate human limitations and fallibility. Obviously, humans make mistakes; but they also bring a unique blend of perspectives, talents, and cognitive tools to every task. We need an industry paradigm that, rather than celebrating the superiority of machines, emphasizes their greatest strength: augmenting and expanding human capabilities. A second obstacle is underinvestment in humans. AI can be a tool for human empowerment only if we invest as much in training and skills. AI tools complementing workers will amount to nothing if most humans cannot use them, or cannot acquire and process the information they provide. It took humans a long time to figure out how to manage the information from new sources such as the printing press, radio, TV, and the internet, but the timeline for AI will be accelerated (even if the “imminent AGI” scenario remains so much hot air). The only way to ensure that humans benefit from AI, rather than being fooled by it, is to invest in training and education at all levels. That means going beyond the trite advice to invest in skills that will be complementary to AI. While that is of course necessary, it is woefully insufficient. What we really need is to teach students and workers to coexist with AI tools and use them in the right way. The third barrier is the tech industry’s business models. We will not get better AI unless tech companies invest in it; but the sector is now more concentrated than ever, and the dominant firms are completely devoted to the quest for AGI and human-replacing and human-manipulating applications. A huge share of the industry’s revenues comes from digital ads (based on collecting extensive data from users and getting them hooked on platforms and their offerings), and from selling tools and services for automation. But new business models are unlikely to emerge by themselves. The incumbents have built large empires and monopolized key resources – capital, data, talent – leaving aspiring entrants at an increasing disadvantage. Even if some new player breaks through, it is more likely to be acquired by one of the tech giants than to challenge their business model. The bottom line is that we need an anti-AGI, pro-human agenda for AI. Workers and citizens should be empowered to push AI in a direction that can fulfill its promise as an information technology. But for that to happen, we will need a new narrative in the media, policymaking circles, and civil society, and much better regulations and policy responses. Governments can help to change the direction of AI, rather than merely reacting to issues as they arise. But first policymakers must recognize the problem.

Nov. 29, 2024

Re: [nexa] "Tecnologia, Democrazia e controllo sociale: da Rodotà all'era dellAI"

by Antonio

> https://www.ideesottosopra.org/post/tecnologia-democrazia-e-controllo-socia… "La sfida attuale è recuperare quella visione alternativa della tecnologia dell'informazione che fu sconfitta politicamente negli anni '70: una visione che vede gli strumenti digitali non come mezzi di controllo dall'alto, ma come potenziali strumenti di partecipazione democratica e sviluppo umano" 23 anni dopo "Elaboratori elettronici e controllo sociale", nel 1996, come anteprima del "secolo della rete", Rodotà, in Tecnopolitica scriveva: "spesso il digitale ci porta a volgere lo sguardo ad Atene, in realtà sembra che maggiormente confacenti in termini descrittivi siano gli spazi istituzionali spartani, ove il processo decisionale avveniva soltanto per acclamazione, secondo una ferrea logica militare di inquadramenti e di gerarchizzazione. Nella Apella spartana non vi era alcuna conta dei voti, ma valeva solo il ruggito di crescente intensità del popolo, mentre i candidati alla carica di Geronte erano rinchiusi in una stanza da cui non potevano assistere ma solo ascoltare le acclamazioni della folla." A.

Nov. 29, 2024

"Huawei launches Mate 70 smartphone as new US chip curbs loom"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Molto istruttiva anche questa sequenza su Twitter/X: https://x.com/TaylorOgan/status/1861273322627244451 jc *Huawei launches Mate 70 smartphone as new US chip curbs loom* By David Kirton November 26, 20242:30 PM GMT+1Updated 2 days ago SHENZHEN, China, Nov 26 (Reuters) - Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies unveiled its Mate 70 smartphone series on Tuesday, bolstering its premium smartphone comeback while showcasing its own operating system that looks to cleanly break away from U.S. technology. The Mate 70 is the successor to the Mate 60 series released in August last year, widely seen as marking Huawei's comeback to high-end smartphones in competition with Apple (AAPL.O) , opens new tab after its business was badly hit by U.S. export curbs. Its launch comes as the U.S. is expected to announce new export controls that could add up to 200 Chinese chip companies to a trade blacklist as soon as this week, restricting their access to U.S. suppliers, Reuters reported on Saturday. The device is "the most powerful Mate phone ever", Richard Yu, chairman of Huawei's consumer business group, said at an event in the company's hometown of Shenzhen that was livestreamed online and at its stores. Mate 70 prices will start at 5,499 yuan ($758), Yu said. Apple's base iPhone 16 model sells for 5,999 yuan in China. Yu also said the Mate 70 is the first mainstream smartphone to include a satellite paging system, has an improved processor, and runs on Huawei's own HarmonyOS NEXT operating system, which together boost performance by 40% compared to previous models. [...] continua qui: https://www.reuters.com/technology/huawei-launches-mate-70-smartphone-2024-…

Nov. 28, 2024

Re: [nexa] nexa] Arun, "Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism"

by maurizio lana

sul lavoro umano sottopagato e precario, primariamente in paesi poveri ma anche in Europa, che fa andare avanti il mondo digitale non ultimi i sistemi di IA, non scopro io nulla: è intervenuto in questa lista e nel mondo fisico Antonio Casilli, ci sono decine di articoli di indagine di testate giornalistiche. il fatto che in Africa ci siano esperienze anche molto positive come Beppe scrive, non cancela tutto il resto. è semplicemente un'altra cosa. il paragone con i pesticidi è che la moderazione dei contenuti disturbanti (stupri, pedofilia, incidenti sanguinosi, violenze, ecc.) attribuita all'algoritmo viene in gran parte fatta nei sottoscala dai poveri overseas (quello stesso overseas dove le regole sui pesticidi non ci riguardano perché 'sono a casa loro, no? hanno le loro leggi') voglio dire che il discorso un po' è disturbante, un po' è formulato intenzionalmente in modo provocatorio, ma è fondato. Maurizio ...e poi poiché io sono dentro il paradigma bibliografico (= le fonti, ben identificate, sono sempre necessarie e non sono mai abbastanza) condivido con voi un po' di riferimenti: Bilić, Paško. «Search Algorithms, Hidden Labour and Information Control». /Big Data & Society/ 3, fasc. 1 (giugno 2016): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716652159. Casilli, Antonio. «Il paradosso dell’IA: il lavoro nascosto per creare un futuro senza lavoro». /Micromega/, 20 novembre 2024. https://www.micromega.net/paradosso-ia-il-lavoro-nascosto-per-creare-un-fut…. ———. /Schiavi del clic. Perché lavoriamo tutti per il nuovo capitalismo?/ Tradotto da Raffaele Alberto Ventura. Milano: Feltrinelli, 2020. Hegarty, Tom. «Huge Ruling in Kenyan Court Threatens Global Model of Outsourced Content Moderation – and Says That Facebook Is the “True Employer” of Its Key Safety Workers». Foxglove, 6 giugno 2023. https://www.foxglove.org.uk/2023/06/06/kenyan-court-ruling-outsourced-conte…. Irani, Lilly. «The Hidden Faces of Automation». /XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students/ 23, fasc. 2 (15 dicembre 2016): 34–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3014390. Lana, Maurizio. «Automi di ieri e sistemi di Intelligenza Artificiale di oggi: umani, troppo umani». Billet. /Leggere, scrivere e far di conto. Informatica Umanistica e Cultura Digitale: il blog dell’ AIUCD./ (blog), 5 luglio 2023. https://infouma.hypotheses.org/1981. Lu, Yiwen, e Cade Metz. «Cruise’s Driverless Taxi Service in San Francisco Is Suspended». /The New York Times/, 24 ottobre 2023, sez. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/technology/cruise-driverless-san-francis…. Marcus, Gary. «24 Seriously Embarrassing Hours for AI». Substack newsletter. /The road to AI we can trust/ (blog), 18 gennaio 2023. https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/24-seriously-embarrassing-hours-for?utm_m…. Marvit, Moshe Z. «How Crowdworkers Became the Ghosts in the Digital Machine». /The Nation/, 5 febbraio 2014. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-crowdworkers-became-ghosts-di…. Miceli, Milagros, Paola Tubaro, Antonio A Casilli, Thomas Le Bonniec, Camilla Salim Wagner, e Laurenz Sachenbacher. «Who Trains the Data for European Artificial Intelligence?» Report of the European Microworkers Communication and Outreach Initiative (EnCOre, 2023-2024). European Parliament; The Left, 2024. https://hal.science/hal-04662589v1. Perrigo, Billy. «Inside Facebook’s African Sweatshop». /Time/, 17 febbraio 2022. https://time.com/6147458/facebook-africa-content-moderation-employee-treatm…. ———. «OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic». /Time/, 18 gennaio 2023. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/. Posada, Julian. «Family Units». /Logic(s) Magazine/, 25 dicembre 2021. https://logicmag.io/beacons/family-units/. Tan, Rebecca, e Regine Cabato. «Behind the AI Boom, an Army of Overseas Workers in ‘Digital Sweatshops’». /Washington Post/, 28 agosto 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/08/28/scale-ai-remotasks-philippi…. Il 27/11/24 11:48, Giuseppe Attardi ha scritto: > Sono d’accordo sulle premesse sull’imperialismo e sul capitalismo > digitale. > > Non capisco molto invece altre affermazioni e le conclusioni. > > Non mi pare il caso di assimilare l’attività di annotazione di dati > degli africani ad altre pratiche dannose come l’esportazione di pesticidi: > "The exploitation of cognitive labor is characteristic of > informational capitalism but derives from, and is co-extensive with, > industrial capitalism’s systems for labor exploitation…. > Consider product liability laws in the United States, which emerged > from mass torts or from regulators: products like banned pesticides > that cannot be sold or used in the United States are exported to other > markets… > Informational capitalism is currently governed by a similarly > permissive legal order—if the United States and EU regulate to protect > their populations, harmful AI products will continue to be developed > and inflicted on the people of other states.” > > Quali siano questi cosiddetti “harmful AI products” non mi è chiaro. > > La digitalizzazione offre invece delle opportunità ai paesi emergenti: > un recente incontro di ISOC Society sul tema A Billion More People > will Transform the the Internet” (https://youtu.be/_Cog9HRBZlY) > illustrava gli esempi di nuovi lavori che vengono svolti in Nigeria, > da persone con buone competenze informatiche, che lavorano per aziende > occidentali. L’esperienza porta costoro a imparare come impiantare > nuove aziende locali, con diversi esempi di giovani che costruiscono > servizi di connettività locale e di una start-up che offre la gestione > dele cartelle sanitarie ad ospedali che curano oltre 300 mila pazienti. > > Poi si aggiungono critiche su dati obsoleti, che è una questione a sua > volta obsoleta. > > Conclusioni: > To avoid future problems, the discourse about AI regulation needs to > expand its currently myopic view of risk and who is at risk to cover > the labor harms as well as data and algorithmic injustices that will > certainly result from global AI systems. > > Mah, “certainly result” mi pare un’affermazione eccessiva. Nessuno sa > come sarà il futuro. > > — Beppe > > >> On 26 Nov 2024, at 20:05, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: >> >> From: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> >> To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> >> Subject: [nexa] Arun, "Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism" >> Message-ID: <8f87f003-c928-4709-bab6-cfd14af1c01c(a)polito.it> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> *Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism* >> >> // >> >> /Chinmayi Arun/ >> >> *Introduction* >> >> ** >> >> When I first had coffee with Facebook’s head of public policy in India, >> she was using a shared workspace. Before joining Facebook, she had led >> the policy practice of one of India’s most powerful law firms and was on >> friendly terms with judges, ministers, and other influential people. It >> was surprising to find her in a small office in a shared workspace, with >> just one administrative assistant for support. In a couple of years, she >> moved to a suite with a beautiful view in one of Delhi’s finest luxury >> hotels, acquired an expanding team of seasoned lawyers and policy >> professionals. Within five years, the public policy team had grown to be >> so large that it had its own plush office in the heart of Delhi. This >> expansion of influence within Delhi mirrored the expansion of Meta’s >> (previously Facebook) influence in India. If it was difficult to be in >> an Indian city without relying heavily on Big Tech’s products, it was >> impossible to work on technology policy in Delhi without being swept >> into currents of change created by Big Tech.^1 >> >> People across the world are grappling with a few global technology >> companies ’ domination of their public spheres and increasingly of other >> spheres of social, economic, and political engagement. In her essay on >> the “algorithmic colonization of Africa,” Abeba Birhane pointed out that >> most of Africa’s digital infrastructure is owned and controlled by major >> Western technology companies, and she further questioned how relevant >> artificial intelligence (AI) tools from the West are in other contexts.^2 >> >> >> [...] >> >> continua qui: >> https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/transnational-ai-and-corpora… >> <https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/transnational-ai-and-corpora…> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ manutenzione della felicità comune michela murgia ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

Nov. 27, 2024

Re: [nexa] nexa] Arun, "Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism"

by Giuseppe Attardi

Sono d’accordo sulle premesse sull’imperialismo e sul capitalismo digitale. Non capisco molto invece altre affermazioni e le conclusioni. Non mi pare il caso di assimilare l’attività di annotazione di dati degli africani ad altre pratiche dannose come l’esportazione di pesticidi: "The exploitation of cognitive labor is characteristic of informational capitalism but derives from, and is co-extensive with, industrial capitalism’s systems for labor exploitation…. Consider product liability laws in the United States, which emerged from mass torts or from regulators: products like banned pesticides that cannot be sold or used in the United States are exported to other markets… Informational capitalism is currently governed by a similarly permissive legal order—if the United States and EU regulate to protect their populations, harmful AI products will continue to be developed and inflicted on the people of other states.” Quali siano questi cosiddetti “harmful AI products” non mi è chiaro. La digitalizzazione offre invece delle opportunità ai paesi emergenti: un recente incontro di ISOC Society sul tema A Billion More People will Transform the the Internet” (https://youtu.be/_Cog9HRBZlY) illustrava gli esempi di nuovi lavori che vengono svolti in Nigeria, da persone con buone competenze informatiche, che lavorano per aziende occidentali. L’esperienza porta costoro a imparare come impiantare nuove aziende locali, con diversi esempi di giovani che costruiscono servizi di connettività locale e di una start-up che offre la gestione dele cartelle sanitarie ad ospedali che curano oltre 300 mila pazienti. Poi si aggiungono critiche su dati obsoleti, che è una questione a sua volta obsoleta. Conclusioni: To avoid future problems, the discourse about AI regulation needs to expand its currently myopic view of risk and who is at risk to cover the labor harms as well as data and algorithmic injustices that will certainly result from global AI systems. Mah, “certainly result” mi pare un’affermazione eccessiva. Nessuno sa come sarà il futuro. — Beppe > On 26 Nov 2024, at 20:05, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > From: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it <mailto:juancarlos.demartin@polito.it>> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>> > Subject: [nexa] Arun, "Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism" > Message-ID: <8f87f003-c928-4709-bab6-cfd14af1c01c(a)polito.it <mailto:8f87f003-c928-4709-bab6-cfd14af1c01c@polito.it>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > *Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism* > > // > > /Chinmayi Arun/ > > *Introduction* > > ** > > When I first had coffee with Facebook’s head of public policy in India, > she was using a shared workspace. Before joining Facebook, she had led > the policy practice of one of India’s most powerful law firms and was on > friendly terms with judges, ministers, and other influential people. It > was surprising to find her in a small office in a shared workspace, with > just one administrative assistant for support. In a couple of years, she > moved to a suite with a beautiful view in one of Delhi’s finest luxury > hotels, acquired an expanding team of seasoned lawyers and policy > professionals. Within five years, the public policy team had grown to be > so large that it had its own plush office in the heart of Delhi. This > expansion of influence within Delhi mirrored the expansion of Meta’s > (previously Facebook) influence in India. If it was difficult to be in > an Indian city without relying heavily on Big Tech’s products, it was > impossible to work on technology policy in Delhi without being swept > into currents of change created by Big Tech.^1 > > People across the world are grappling with a few global technology > companies ’ domination of their public spheres and increasingly of other > spheres of social, economic, and political engagement. In her essay on > the “algorithmic colonization of Africa,” Abeba Birhane pointed out that > most of Africa’s digital infrastructure is owned and controlled by major > Western technology companies, and she further questioned how relevant > artificial intelligence (AI) tools from the West are in other contexts.^2 > > > [...] > > continua qui: > https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/transnational-ai-and-corpora… > <https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/transnational-ai-and-corpora…>

Nov. 27, 2024

Capitolo Sull'etica dell'intelligenza artificiale [Era: anche in francese]

by Daniela Tafani

Grazie, Maurizio. Ne approfitto per segnalare che ho reso disponibile il preprint di un mio capitolo Sull'etica dell'intelligenza artificiale, nel quale provo a spiegare, in modo semplice, di cosa si tratti: <https://zenodo.org/records/14226295> E' rivolto a chi, non essendosene mai occupato, immagina che esista una disciplina che mira a rendere buoni i robot o equi gli algoritmi. Per questa lista sono cose note, ma forse conoscete qualcuno a cui potrebbe interessare. Un caro saluto e a presto, Daniela ________________________________________ Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di maurizio lana <maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it> Inviato: martedì 26 novembre 2024 18:52 A: NEXA ML Oggetto: [nexa] anche in francese segnalo questo articolo L’IA, l’éthique et la théorie des baïonnettes intelligentes par Dominique Boullier et Aurélie Jean uscito su AOC https://aoc.media/analyse/2024/11/26/lia-lethique-et-la-theorie-des-baionne… in cui sono presenti temi molto discussi qui in Nexa, ad esempio la teoria delle baionette intelligenti a me richiama molto il concetto di Giacomo dell'IA come artefatto e le riflessioni di Daniela sull'impossibilità di un'etica dell'IA: ... La théorie des baïonnettes intelligentes a été initiée en France au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et avec l’arrêt du 10 novembre 1944 lors de l’affaire Langneur<https://www.revuegeneraledudroit.eu/blog/decisions/conseil-detat-10-novembr…>. Le droit reconnaissait ainsi que toute action porteuse de dommages de la part d’une baïonnette (qui transperce un corps notamment) trouvait sa source dans une décision d’un acteur humain qui ne pouvait s’en détacher en attribuant la responsabilité à l’outil baïonnette supposé intelligent. Le soldat ne pouvait ainsi se considérer comme une simple baïonnette car il était supposé intelligent. En droit pénal, elle est un outil juridique qui permet de condamner une personne physique qui a obéi à un ordre de sa hiérarchie manifestement illégal. Appliquée initialement dans le domaine militaire, elle s’étend ensuite au domaine civil dans la fonction publique puis dans le privé. Aux États-Unis, son équivalent américain, le Uniform Code of Military Justice, a été mis en vigueur dans les années cinquante. Le 23 janvier 1997, l’ancien Premier ministre Maurice Papon fut condamné au motif que « l’illégalité d’un ordre de l’autorité légitime en matière de crime contre l’humanité [est] toujours manifeste »<https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000007066186/#:~:text=ne%20p…'ayant%20jamais%20%C3%A9t%C3%A9%20d>. Plus récemment, en 2019, des gendarmes de la ville de Nice, en pleine crise des Gilets jaunes lors d’un rassemblement, refusent d’obéir à un ordre de leur hiérarchie<https://www.liberation.fr/france/2019/06/24/affaire-legay-les-gendarmes-ont…>. Ils le jugent disproportionné au regard de la menace, surestimée selon eux, et ont été soutenus par l’appel à cette théorie. ... Maurizio ________________________________ there is a war between the rich and poor there is a war between the ones who say there is a war and the ones who say there isn't l. cohen, there is a war (1974) ________________________________ Maurizio Lana - 347 7370925

Nov. 26, 2024

Arun, "Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Transnational AI and Corporate Imperialism* // /Chinmayi Arun/ *Introduction* ** When I first had coffee with Facebook’s head of public policy in India, she was using a shared workspace. Before joining Facebook, she had led the policy practice of one of India’s most powerful law firms and was on friendly terms with judges, ministers, and other influential people. It was surprising to find her in a small office in a shared workspace, with just one administrative assistant for support. In a couple of years, she moved to a suite with a beautiful view in one of Delhi’s finest luxury hotels, acquired an expanding team of seasoned lawyers and policy professionals. Within five years, the public policy team had grown to be so large that it had its own plush office in the heart of Delhi. This expansion of influence within Delhi mirrored the expansion of Meta’s (previously Facebook) influence in India. If it was difficult to be in an Indian city without relying heavily on Big Tech’s products, it was impossible to work on technology policy in Delhi without being swept into currents of change created by Big Tech.^1 People across the world are grappling with a few global technology companies ’ domination of their public spheres and increasingly of other spheres of social, economic, and political engagement. In her essay on the “algorithmic colonization of Africa,” Abeba Birhane pointed out that most of Africa’s digital infrastructure is owned and controlled by major Western technology companies, and she further questioned how relevant artificial intelligence (AI) tools from the West are in other contexts.^2 [...] continua qui: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/transnational-ai-and-corpora… <https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/transnational-ai-and-corpora…>

Nov. 26, 2024

anche in francese

by maurizio lana

segnalo questo articolo L’IA, l’éthique et la théorie des baïonnettes intelligentes par Dominique Boullier et Aurélie Jean uscito su AOC https://aoc.media/analyse/2024/11/26/lia-lethique-et-la-theorie-des-baionne… in cui sono presenti temi molto discussi qui in Nexa, ad esempio la teoria delle baionette intelligenti a me richiama molto il concetto di Giacomo dell'IA come artefatto e le riflessioni di Daniela sull'impossibilità di un'etica dell'IA: > > ... > La théorie des baïonnettes intelligentes a été initiée en France au > cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et avec l’arrêt du 10 novembre > 1944 lors de l’affaire Langneur > <https://www.revuegeneraledudroit.eu/blog/decisions/conseil-detat-10-novembr…>. > Le droit reconnaissait ainsi que toute action porteuse de dommages de > la part d’une baïonnette (qui transperce un corps notamment) trouvait > sa source dans une décision d’un acteur humain qui ne pouvait s’en > détacher en attribuant la responsabilité à l’outil baïonnette supposé > intelligent. Le soldat ne pouvait ainsi se considérer comme une simple > baïonnette car il était supposé intelligent. > > En droit pénal, elle est un outil juridique qui permet de condamner > une personne physique qui a obéi à un ordre de sa hiérarchie > manifestement illégal. Appliquée initialement dans le domaine > militaire, elle s’étend ensuite au domaine civil dans la fonction > publique puis dans le privé. Aux États-Unis, son équivalent américain, > le Uniform Code of Military Justice, a été mis en vigueur dans les > années cinquante. Le 23 janvier 1997, l’ancien Premier ministre > Maurice Papon fut condamné au motif que « l’illégalité d’un ordre de > l’autorité légitime en matière de crime contre l’humanité [est] > toujours manifeste » > <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000007066186/#:~:text=ne%20p…'ayant%20jamais%20%C3%A9t%C3%A9%20d>. > Plus récemment, en 2019, des gendarmes de la ville de Nice, en pleine > crise des Gilets jaunes lors d’un rassemblement, refusent d’obéir à un > ordre de leur hiérarchie > <https://www.liberation.fr/france/2019/06/24/affaire-legay-les-gendarmes-ont…>. > Ils le jugent /disproportionné/ au regard de la menace, surestimée > selon eux, et ont été soutenus par l’appel à cette théorie. > ... > Maurizio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ there is a war between the rich and poor there is a war between the ones who say there is a war and the ones who say there isn't l. cohen, there is a war (1974) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana - 347 7370925

Nov. 26, 2024

Re: [nexa] "Tecnologia, Democrazia e controllo sociale: da Rodotà all'era dellAI"

by Alessandro Brolpito

Buonasera Alfredo, L'istruzione è materia di competenza dei paesi membri, la UE ha un ruolo abbastanza marginale, dando dei framework/standard di riferimento per la definizione e il monitoraggio delle competenze digitali di studenti e cittadini. A mio avviso, una difficoltà oggettiva è che l'essere oggi giorno competenti da un punto di vista digitale è un 'moving target' che richiede un processo incrementale, ben oltre l'apprendimento formale a scuola, includendo la formazione per gli adulti, la riqualificazione regolare ecc. E' un problema oggettivamente complesso, c'è consapevolezza, ma la soluzione ripeto è assai complessa (ed urgente). Alessandro On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 15:50, Alfredo Bregni <abregni(a)iperv.it> wrote: > Ciao, Enrico. > > "Fare qualcosa di utile insieme" significava vedere la gente impegnarsi in > un progetto *proprio*, ...e tre > volte rivoluzionario: > - Sul piano tecnico-economico: diventare proprietari dell'ultimo miglio, > cambiando non poche logiche di potere; > - Sul piano sociale: plasmare insieme una nuova realtà; > - Sul piano democratico: costruire, sulla nuova realtà "propria" e "fatta > insieme", un nuovo modo di (co)operare, per darsi servizio reciproco > disintermediando tutto il possibile. > E sarebbe stato qualcosa di "autoavverante", perché il germe di "fare > insieme" è la base di tutto, ...che abbiamo dimenticato. > > Ti faccio i miei complimenti per quello che hai scelto di fare e sei > riuscito a realizzare, ma sai da solo -- senza che te lo dica io -- che si > tratta di un ambito specifico e circoscritto, per quanto importante e > pervasivo possa essere. > > Alla UE un giorno ho detto: "invece di microdefinire ogni più piccolo > ambito di ricerca che pensate di finanziare, perché non date a tre saggi il > 40% di tutto il budget della ricerca, e lo mettete sotto la dicitura di ' > *unexpected* innovation'?" > Hanno sbarellato un attimo, perché hanno capito che nel loro approccio di > micromanagement burocratico-ossessivo qualcosa non andava, ma sono certo > che alla fine abbiano solo dato una scrollata alle spalle. > Questo per dire che, se si vuole cambiare qualcosa, si deve cambiare > abbastanza di brutto, non mettere a posto le sedie sul Titanic... > > E l'informatica, come vero ruolo socio-economico, dovrebbe per prima cosa > crecare di diventare *dependable*, *friendly* e *flessibile*, mentre oggi > a me sembra tutto il contrario di questo, con una nuova casta gergale di > "preti", che ha passato gli ultimi trent'anni a costruire mirabilissime > cattedrali di sabbia (si ragiona prncipalmente in termini di reusability, > proprio perché l'IT è importante e pervasiva, e occorre arrivare presto, > ...e addio a tutto il resto). > > Se l'Europa "insegnerà informatica" come oggi "fa ricerca", capisci ammè > che non sarà una landa molto felice. > E se abbiamo i politici che abbiamo (e probabilmente pure ci > meritiamo...), forse questa è una cassandrata facile. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> > *To:* nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:44 PM > *Subject:* Re: [nexa] "Tecnologia, Democrazia e controllo sociale: da > Rodotà all'era dellAI" > > Caro Alfredo, > > io sto "facendo" da 10 anni, per la diffusione della consapevolezza > dell'importanza di insegnare l'informatica nelle scuola, cioè a tutti i > cittadini, col progetto Programma il Futuro (https://programmailfuturo.it) > con le attività della coalizione europea Informatics for All ( > https://informaticsforall.org) con i miei interventi divulgativi ( > https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli/dissemination-articles.html) e, da > ultimo ma non meno importante, con le "pillole" di informatica estratte dal > mio libro "La rivoluzione informatica" e pubblicate settimanalmente > dall'IRPA (https://www.irpa.eu/a-passeggio-con-la-informatica/) > > Stanno "avvenendo" le cose? Nel novembre 2023 il Parlamento Europeo ha > approvato una raccomandazione a tutti gli Stati Membri affinché > l'informatica faccia parte dell'istruzione obbligatoria fin dai primi anni. > Ne ho scritto qua > https://www.startmag.it/innovazione/la-raccomandazione-europea-insegnamento… > > > Per la prima volta, dopo più di vent'anni in cui si è parlato solo di > "digital skills", il termine "informatica" è entrato nel lessico della > politica europea. Chissà che prima o poi non lo comprendano anche i > politici italiani, ora che attraverso l'intelligenza artificiale hanno > capito che "questa roba" è importante. > > Quindi, sì, dal mio punto di vista qualcosa sta avvenendo. È sufficiente? > No, è solo il primo passo, serviranno penso almeno altri dieci o vent'anni > per vedere effetti concreti nei singoli paesi. > > Mi spiace se non riesco a fare di più, ma penso che sia più efficace - > visto che non sono in politica ma nell'accademia - impegnarmi nei temi > tecnici sui quali ho competenza invece che su un generico "fare qualcosa di > utile insieme". > > Ciao, Enrico > > > Il 26/11/2024 00:33, Alfredo Bregni ha scritto: > > > Ciao, Enrico, Giacomo e tutti. > > Odio fare quello che pontifica, ma il problema è far avvenire le cose, non > raccontare cosa andrebbe fatto. > E in un mondo complesso, la cosa si ottiene -- *SE E SOLO SE è arrivato > il momento buono...* -- agendo "per condizioni necessarie" (= si deve > fare quello senza il quale non può avvenire quello che serve, ...sperando > che le cose girino nella direzione voluta). > > Tutto quello che di cui parlate voi -- Enrico e Giacomo -- si chiama > "cultura", ...e non è un caso se la gente (salvo i privilegiati) viene > mantenuta in una sottocultura consumistica e manipolata, quando non peggio. > Mettersi a fare proclami che tutti dovrebbero crescere culturalmente è > tanto bello in teoria quanto inutile sul campo. > > La mia idea di far comunicare la gente, DOPO che avesse impostato un > progetto *corale *di "riappropriarci di qualcosa di nostro" (detto > banalmente, paghiamo il canone su qualcosa di nostro, strapagato negli > anni, e la transizione da rame a fibra era l'occasione buona), decidendo > poi cosa offrire l'uno all'altro, con un livello di intermediazione ridotto > / nullo, era in questa direzione: *se non c'è quello*, *tutto il resto > manca*; *se non si cambia il punto chiave, l'intermediazione, il > cambiamento neanche parte* (la cultura si cambia in 50 anni, e forse > neanche: avevo 18 anni nel '68, e mi sentirei di dire che si è più perso > che progredito, rispetto a quanto ci si sarebbe potuto aspettare; con la > comunicazione -- persino "fisica" -- in mano ai cittadini, si sarebbe > potuto vedere cambiare qualcosa in 10). > IL PUNTO E' CHE NON ERA ARRIVATO IL MOMENTO: era il momento giusto sul > piano tecnico (transizione da rame a fibra), ma non su quello sociale, > culturale e politico: praticamente tutti i "cittadini" che ho incontrato, o > pensavano a farci sopra del business, o aspettavano di sentire quali > fossero le idee altrui, per "comprare" da altri la direzione del proprio > futuro, invece di pensare a prendere l'iniziativa nelle loro mani (*e > questo DI CERTO dal '68 ce lo siamo beatamente perduto*). > > Condizione necessaria, non sufficiente, era e sarà *provare a svegliare > la gente a fare una cosa utile insieme.* > E ora si aspetta che arrivi un'altra occasione e la gente abbia capito > qualcosa di più (*nel trend dal '68 ad oggi, temo di doverne dubitare*). > Per ribaltare un grosso sasso, si deve attendere una scossa di terremoto e > poi spingere tutti insieme (considerato che le macchine movimento terra > sono in mano a chi il masso lo vuole lasciare dov'è). Il terremoto era la > transizione tecnologica rame-fibra, ma la gente non aveva (più) la cultura > politica di fare le cose insieme, e (non ancora) quella tecnica di capire > la relazione fra tecnologia (di comunicazione; l'informatica c'entra molto > meno) e democrazia. > > Se parlate di (sola) informatica, o al contrario dell'universo mondo di > tutta la cultura, parlate di qualcosa di molto parziale (e/o addirittura > ingannevole), oppure di ingestibile nella sua enormità. Non si va da > nessuna parte. > Si deve attendere il momento, e agire in modo mirato in un punto chiave. > Tema più vasto (come problem determination) e più ristretto (come problem > solution) di quello che si dibatte qua. > > E scusate se ho pontificato... > > In ogni caso, basta guardare all'avventura del Movimento Cinque Stelle, > delle vaccinazioni e green pass Covid, e del superbonus 110%, per capire *quanto > siamo indietro* rispetto a 56 anni fa... > Non c'è un c...o di cultura socio-politica diffusa, oggi. > > > -- > > -- EN > https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html > ====================================================== > Prof. Enrico Nardelli > Past President 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 > ====================================================== > -- > >

Nov. 26, 2024

EOLE: Navigating the New EU Regulatory Landscape in Open Source (Torino, 29.11.2024)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Navigating the New EU Regulatory Landscape in Open Source https://eolevent.eu/eole-2024/ The European Union has been on a regulatory spree in the digital space, affecting a wide range of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), including the previously less regulated area of open source software. Key regulations such as the Cyber Resilience Act, the Artificial Intelligence Act and the Product Liability Directive have begun to reshape the framework within which open source software stakeholders operate. In addition, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive continue to have a profound impact on the licensing, development and distribution of open source projects. This year, EOLE is organising its conference in Turin in November. We will discuss and analyse the impact of these emerging regulations on open source projects, communities and software ecosystems. We invite thought leaders, legal experts, developers and policy makers to engage in a critical dialogue through presentations and workshops focusing on both the specific nuances of open source software regulation and the broader regulatory trends that could significantly influence open source dynamics. Among other topics, we invite you to propose a talk or workshop on Open Source and: * The AI Act: Explore how requirements for algorithmic transparency and accountability could impact Open Source software development in / through AI. * The Cyber Resilience Act: Discuss the act’s requirements for security practices in software development and its implications for Open Source project security and SBPOM generation. * The proposed Product Liability Directive: Analyse potential liabilities for Open Source developers and how this directive could change the landscape of Open Source software usage and development. * Other impactful regulations: For instance, the effects of the Network and Information Security Directive (NIS) 1 and 2 on Open Source security practices. * Regulatory risk and compliance: Best practices for Open Source projects, including how to navigate the complex regulatory environment. * Regulatory standardisation and Open Source: The double-edged sword of standardisation in promoting innovation while potentially imposing restrictive standards. * Community collaboration on regulation: Strategies for Open Source communities to collectively address regulatory challenges and advocate for favourable policies. The objective of the event is to share ideas and practices related to these regulations. The outcomes of the EOLE 2024 event will include dissemination of knowledge and consensus building regarding these topics, and may include checklists for regulatory compliance, action items, suggested best practices. If you want to keep up to date with all the news from the EOLE event, we invite youto subscribe to our newsletter. <https://nouvelles.inno3.eu/subscription/YZevRqDU2> -------- *10h00 – 12h00 – Cyber x Open Source* The aim of this workshop is to assess the impact of the latest cybersecurity regulations (notably NIS 2 and the more recent Cyber Resilience Act) on Open Source players (companies and communities) and practices. The workshop will be introduced and chaired by Benjamin Jean, and moderated with Arthur Hamonic and Clémence Lascombes (inno³). It will begin by presenting the work carried out in France for Open Source economic players, and will then propose a series of specific points to be addressed by the participants. *The following agenda is planned:* * Presentation of the interest of the subject and the study carried out in France on behalf of the CNLL (30min), * shared discussions with the workshop participants in order to identify and specify the areas of work to be carried out collectively (30min), * design of sub-groups and work by sub-groups based on a shared analysis framework (30 min), * summary of contributions and conclusion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *12h00 – 13h30 – Lunch* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *13h30 – 15h30 – The AI Act and Open Source * The AI Act provides for exceptions applicable to “free and open source”. Sounds like good news. But what does “free and open source” mean and what does the AI Act apply to? The news over the past weeks leaves a sense of uncertainty about the meaning of “free and open source AI system”. Will this debate interfere with the applicability of the “free and open source” exceptions provided by the AI Act? This session will deepen these and other questions while trying to shed light on the hottest topic of the moment within the free and open source communities. *The following agenda is planned:* * *Speakers* (1 hour and 30 min) o Carlo Piana (OSI)– Open Source & IA o Laura Garbati (CSI Piemonte)– AI and transparency in PA o Marco Ciurcina (Studiolegale.it)– Free and open source exceptions in AI Act * *Round table* (30min) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *16h30 – 17h30 – Open Science & Open Source* The European Union and many research organisations are pushing more and more for Open Science in publicly funded projects, something which aligns closely with open source principles. Open science is a wider concept, including open data, content, source and open research collaboration mechanisms, and raises several challenges in tension between regulatory obligations, confidentiality, and open licenses. *The following agenda is planned:* * Malcolm Bain (Across Legal) : Open source licensing as a tool for open science * Ludovica Paseri (University of Turin) : Data Regulations, open data and open science * Aurelio Ruiz (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) : Issues of open science and licensing from a practical perspective in academic research ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *17h30 – 18h30 – Going on a broader level (competition law, market regulation, etc.)* How does Open Source fit in the more and more complex view of the “market” by EU ? We could even go further and discuss theorical and concrete debate as Open Source public policies and competition vs Open/Proprietary Model from private ? ----- Practical information *Date : *29 November 2024 *Location : *Corso Unione Sovietica, 216, 10134 Torino TO, Italy *Duration of the event : *it begins at 9:30 and will finish around 18:30 *Register here : *https://framaforms.org/eole-2024-registration-1728372094 *Subscribe to EOLE newsletter *: https://nouvelles.inno3.eu/subscription/YZevRqDU2

Nov. 26, 2024