July 2024 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

SearchGPT: OpenAI sfida Google

by Antonio

Della serie, il "piano B". Se non riusciamo a "piazzare" il prodotto, quanto meno cerchiamo di scalzare Google dal trono della "search", forse sarà più facile in questo modo rientrare dagli investimenti. Se non ricordo male era Maurizio Lana che in questa lista sosteneva per primo quale fosse il "vero" obiettivo di OpenAI/Microsoft. Su Search GPT ci sono diversi articoli, uno a caso, https://www.futuroprossimo.it/2024/07/searchgpt-openai-sfida-google-con-il-… . A.

July 29, 2024

Re: [nexa] Frontiere

by Antonio

> contro il riconoscimento facciale riempire il mondo digitale di doppioni artificiali. > E' la prima (e unica) cosa che mi viene in mente di positivo... Mica semplice :) Quando ho provato a creare un utente "fake" su FB [1], mi ha risposto che la foto profilo che stavo inserendo (tratta da qui[2]) non andava bene. A. [1] A fini di ricerca. Non ci tengo proprio ad avere un profilo FB, neanche falso. [2] https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/

July 29, 2024

Re: [nexa] i language model alle prove INVALSI

by Antonio

> l'Università di Milano-Bicocca ha avuto l'idea di ricavare un benchmark > dalle prove INVALSI per valutare come se la cavano i language model con > italiano. Quando sento parlare di benchmark mi vengono in mente le parole di Erich Fromm: "Per intelligenza intendo la capacità di servirsi dei concetti, ma senza penetrare oltre la superficie dei fenomeni fino all'essenza della cose. L'intelligenza preferisce manipolare la realtà anziché comprenderla. La capacità di comprendere è l'opposto dell'intelligenza manipolatrice. La prima presuppone sempre un rapporto con l'oggetto delle nostre riflessioni. Se non c'è rapporto, possiamo soltanto manipolare la realtà. Possiamo *pesarla, misurarla e calcolarla", e confrontare i diversi fattori tra di loro ma un pensiero meramente intellettuale, superficiale, non andando mai dentro le cose, non potrà capirle e modificarle." Lo diceva settanta anni fa e si riferiva ovviamente all'intelligenza umana, ma il ragionamento è valido perfettamente anche oggi. C'è tanta (presunta) intelligenza ma è solo manipolazione, pesi, misure, calcoli. Nei pochissimi casi in cui si fa a fondo ed entra, quindi, in gioco, la "reason", non c'è nulla. C'entra poco con l'oggetto ma un paio di giorni fa Trump ha tenuto un discorso ad una conferenza sui Bitcoin. Pare che qualcuno l'abbiamo convinto che per il bene dell'America (guidata da lui ovviamente), gli USA devono diventare la "capitale mondiale" del Bitcoin. Davanti alla platea, tra le tante "...esserie" che ha detto, una mi ha colpito. "Sono qui davanti a gente dal QI altissimo, i moderni Edison, i fratelli Wright, i Carnegie e gli Henry Ford, io sto correndo contro un individuo con un QI basso, lei, non sto nemmeno parlando di lui, lei" A.

July 29, 2024

Re: [nexa] nexa Digest, Vol 183, Issue 54

by Dario Guarascio

allego buona estate Il giorno lun 29 lug 2024 alle ore 10:58 <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > Send nexa mailing list submissions to > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nexa-owner(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nexa digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Jacobin Italia, "L'intelligenza artificiale e la nostra" > (J.C. DE MARTIN) > 2. Frontiere (don Luca Peyron) > 3. Upwork Study Finds Employee Workloads Rising Despite > Increased C-Suite Investment in Artificial Intelligence > (Daniela Tafani) > 4. Re: Frontiere (Carlo Blengino) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 15:33:01 +0200 > From: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> > To: Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Jacobin Italia, "L'intelligenza artificiale e la > nostra" > Message-ID: <761a87fe-178c-4037-b369-64c7738577cc(a)polito.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Mi sembra che non sia ancora stato segnalato in lista il fatto che > l'ultimo numero della rivista "Jacobin Italia" è dedicato > all'"intelligenza artificiale": > > https://jacobinitalia.it/rivista/lintelligenza-artificiale-e-la-nostra/ > > Qui sotto l'indice. Per chi ama la carta, il numero costa 13 euro. > > juan carlos > > ----- > > *L’intelligenza artificiale e la nostra > * > Il capitale nel cervello > Redazione Jacobin Italia > > Operai e algoritmi > Matteo Pasquinelli > > La profezia di Ned Ludd > Alessandro Nuvolari > > L’IA non risolve i problemi essenziali > Alexander Brentler > > Si scrive IA si legge capitale e lavoro > Armanda Cetrulo Dario Guarascio Jelena Reljic > > La lotta per liberare il tempo > Giorgio Maran > > Il lavoro non riconosciuto > Marco Bertorello Christian Marazzi > > Il limite ecologico > Lorenzo Tecleme > > Il complesso militare-digitale > Andrea Coveri Claudio Cozza Dario Guarascio > > Intimità automatizzata > Anton Jäger > > L’allarme dell’Ue servirà a poco > Lizzie O’Shea > > I dati che discriminano > Teresa Numerico > > Un nuovo campo di disuguaglianze > Carlotta Caciagli > > Per un modernismo senza mercato > Evgenij Morozov Simón Vázquez > > La politica e il deepfake > Andrea Natella > > Governare il digitale dal basso > Giorgio Pirina Laura Eccher > > Nella trama dell’algoritmo > Gianmarco Peterlongo > > La techno e il suono della fine di Detroit > Gavin Mueller > > L’oracolo digitale ha le allucinazioni > Gino Roncaglia Antonio Montefusco Tiziana Mancinelli > > Le psicopatologie tecnologiche di J. G. Ballard > Owen Hatherley > > L’umanità sopravviverà all’IA? > Garrison Lovely >

July 29, 2024

Re: [nexa] Frontiere

by Carlo Blengino

Verso le nuove "frontiere" a difesa della sorveglianza di massa: contro il riconoscimento facciale riempire il mondo digitale di doppioni artificiali. E' la prima (e unica) cosa che mi viene in mente di positivo...però sono aperto a suggerimenti. Buone vacanze a chi in vacanza va. CB Il giorno dom 28 lug 2024 alle ore 17:45 don Luca Peyron < dluca.universitari(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > Passi, verso dove è da capire insieme > > Dl > > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/ > -- *Avv. Carlo Blengino* *Via Duchessa Jolanda n. 19,* *10138 Torino (TO) - Italy* *tel. +39 011 4474035* Penalistiassociati.it

July 29, 2024

Upwork Study Finds Employee Workloads Rising Despite Increased C-Suite Investment in Artificial Intelligence

by Daniela Tafani

Data reveals 96% of C-suite leaders expect AI to boost worker productivity, but 77% of employees report AI has increased their workload SAN FRANCISCO, July 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Upwork Inc. (Nasdaq: UPWK), the world’s work marketplace that connects businesses with independent talent, today released a new study from The Upwork Research Institute revealing that AI is increasing the workloads of full-time employees, hampering productivity, and contributing to employee burnout. While business leaders are investing heavily in AI, the study shows that most organizations are currently failing to unlock the full productivity value of the technology. Despite 96% of C-suite leaders expressing high expectations that AI will enhance productivity, 77% of employees using AI say these tools have added to their workload, and nearly half (47%) of employees using AI report they do not know how to achieve the expected productivity gains. Key findings from the report include: Workers are feeling the strain from rising productivity demands, with 1 in 3 full-time employees saying they will likely quit their jobs in the next six months: 81% of global C-suite leaders acknowledge they have increased demands on their workers in the past year. Consequently, 71% of full-time employees are burned out, and 65% report struggling with their employer’s demands on their productivity. Alarmingly, 1 in 3 employees say they will likely quit their jobs in the next six months due to burnout or being overworked. C-suite leaders have high hopes that AI will help boost productivity, but employees are experiencing the opposite, with AI making their jobs harder: 96% of C-suite leaders expect the use of AI tools to increase their company’s overall productivity levels. Already, 85% of companies are using AI, including 39% mandating the use of AI tools and 46% encouraging their use. However, 77% of employees report that these tools have added to their workload. Employees report spending more time reviewing or moderating AI-generated content (39%), investing more time learning how to use these tools (23%), and being asked to do more work as a direct result of AI (21%). For many workers, the path to achieving the productivity gains that employers expect is not clear: Nearly half (47%) of employees using AI say they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect, and 40% feel their company is asking too much of them when it comes to AI. Freelancers unlock productivity with AI, outpacing full-time employees: Nearly half (48%) of freelancers say they’re “somewhat” or “highly” skilled at using AI, and over a third (34%) use AI tools at least 1-2 days per week. Additionally, more than half (56%) of freelancers say they do not experience struggles keeping pace with productivity demands of clients, as compared to just 35% of their full-time employee counterparts. Many C-suite leaders have doubled organizational agility as well as well-being and engagement among full-time employees as a result of bringing in freelance talent: C-suite leaders leveraging freelancers say they have at least doubled the following outcomes for their business: organizational agility (45%), quality of work being produced (40%), innovation (39%), scalability (39%), revenue and bottom line (36%), and efficiency (34%). More than a third (35%) report also doubling the level of well-being and engagement among their full-time employees as a result of bringing in freelance talent. Nearly half (48%) of C-suite executives even report hiring freelancers to execute delayed AI projects over the past year. “In order to reap the full productivity value of AI, leaders need to create an AI-enhanced work model,” Monahan continued. “This includes leveraging alternative talent pools that are AI-ready, co-creating measures of productivity with their workforces, and developing a deep understanding of and proficiency in implementing a skills-based approach to hiring and talent development. Only then will leaders be able to avoid the risk of losing critical workers and advance their innovation agenda.” For full study findings and insights, visit: <https://www.upwork.com/research/ai-enhanced-work-models> <https://investors.upwork.com/news-releases/news-release-details/upwork-stud…>

July 28, 2024

Frontiere

by don Luca Peyron

Passi, verso dove è da capire insieme Dl https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/

July 28, 2024

Jacobin Italia, "L'intelligenza artificiale e la nostra"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Mi sembra che non sia ancora stato segnalato in lista il fatto che l'ultimo numero della rivista "Jacobin Italia" è dedicato all'"intelligenza artificiale": https://jacobinitalia.it/rivista/lintelligenza-artificiale-e-la-nostra/ Qui sotto l'indice. Per chi ama la carta, il numero costa 13 euro. juan carlos ----- *L’intelligenza artificiale e la nostra * Il capitale nel cervello Redazione Jacobin Italia Operai e algoritmi Matteo Pasquinelli La profezia di Ned Ludd Alessandro Nuvolari L’IA non risolve i problemi essenziali Alexander Brentler Si scrive IA si legge capitale e lavoro Armanda Cetrulo Dario Guarascio Jelena Reljic La lotta per liberare il tempo Giorgio Maran Il lavoro non riconosciuto Marco Bertorello Christian Marazzi Il limite ecologico Lorenzo Tecleme Il complesso militare-digitale Andrea Coveri Claudio Cozza Dario Guarascio Intimità automatizzata Anton Jäger L’allarme dell’Ue servirà a poco Lizzie O’Shea I dati che discriminano Teresa Numerico Un nuovo campo di disuguaglianze Carlotta Caciagli Per un modernismo senza mercato Evgenij Morozov Simón Vázquez La politica e il deepfake Andrea Natella Governare il digitale dal basso Giorgio Pirina Laura Eccher Nella trama dell’algoritmo Gianmarco Peterlongo La techno e il suono della fine di Detroit Gavin Mueller L’oracolo digitale ha le allucinazioni Gino Roncaglia Antonio Montefusco Tiziana Mancinelli Le psicopatologie tecnologiche di J. G. Ballard Owen Hatherley L’umanità sopravviverà all’IA? Garrison Lovely

July 28, 2024

Why Zuckerberg’s multibillion-dollar gamble doesn’t just matter to Meta | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian

by Alberto Cammozzo

Tempo di cominciare a valutare il ritorno degli investimenti fatti. Ma se la competizione si sposta sui prezzi, è forse segno che l'innovazione radicale ha esaurito il suo slancio? E le innovazioni incrementali renderanno davvero redditivi i prodotti che finora non sembrano maturi? <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/26/why-zuckerbergs-…> Why Zuckerberg’s multibillion-dollar gamble doesn’t just matter to Meta Dan Milmo Spending on artificial intelligence could hit a staggering $1tn, according to analysts concerned about whether there will be a return on such a spree. Mark Zuckerberg’s answer this week to such jitters was to release his latest AI system for free. Meta’s Llama 3.1 405B is its most powerful yet, it says, and one of the most capable in the world. While the tech company didn’t disclose how much it cost to train, Zuckerberg, its co-founder and chief executive, has previously disclosed a $10.5bn (£8.9bn) investment in just the chips required to power its AI data centres – with the rest of the electronics, the electricity itself, and the physical building an additional cost on top of that. Yet despite the exorbitant outlay, the parent of Facebook and Instagram will charge you nothing for it. If you can get hold of a computer powerful enough to run it, you don’t have to pay Zuckerberg a cent. Whether that gamble will pay off matters to more than just Meta, though: a big bet by investors and Meta’s tech peers is hingeing on the same question. In June, analysts at Goldman Sachs published a note with the sceptical title: “Gen AI: too much spend, too little benefit?” It pointed to a $1tn investment in AI over the next few years by the tech industries, other companies and utilities on infrastructure, including chips and power grids. That prompted the question: “Will this large spend ever pay off?” The note covers a range of views on whether the spree will bring acceptable returns, including an economics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Daron Acemoglu, who argues that “truly transformative changes” brought about by AI “won’t happen quickly”. In other words, the beneficial economic return from this boom might take longer than investors expect. The research also questions whether power supply can keep up with the demand related to training and operating AI systems – and asks the same about the chips needed to power those models. There are also more optimistic takes from Goldman analysts, who argue that AI will ultimately automate 25% of all work tasks in the US (thus making the economy more productive but also creating new tasks and products) and that the spending boom is not out of whack with previous tech investment sprees. However, Sequoia Capital, an early investor in ChatGPT developer OpenAI, has made it clear that AI companies need to work hard to pay back all that investment in infrastructure such as chips and data centres. A prior estimate that AI companies will need to earn $200bn to pay back their investment has risen to $600bn, wrote Sequoia partner David Cahn. Cahn stressed that backing AI so strongly would “almost certainly” be worthwhile but “the road ahead is going to be a long one”. Benedict Evans, a tech analyst, asked in a note this month whether large language models – the technology underpinning tools such as ChatGPT – “might also be a trap”, because while ChatGPT might look like a full-fledged product, it isn’t. Evans draws an analogy between LLMs and the first iPhones and the appearance of the internet – the potential is there, but other things need to happen as well. “When most technologies first appear they aren’t ready yet and it’s not clear why they’re useful, and they need a bunch more work,” he says. “The iPhone didn’t have 3G and it didn’t have apps. The web arrived in the early 90s, but no one had a modem, let alone broadband. A whole bunch of stuff had to happen before the web could take off.” Evans adds that chatbots have worked well for people who need time-saving fixes for coding and marketing, but it has yet to bring fixes in other areas. “There are very specific cases where this already saves a huge amount of time, but it hasn’t generalised to everybody yet.” He adds: “The feeling that I think most people have looking at ChatGPT is, OK, this is amazingly cool … but what am I supposed to do with this?” This week, OpenAI announced it is testing a search engine in the US, in what could become a direct challenge to search behemoth Google, which has launched AI-generated search answers, too. OpenAI has also hired a former Meta and Twitter executive, Kevin Weil, as its chief product officer to help answer the question: “What am I supposed to do with this?” This week, tech news site the Information reported that OpenAI could lose as much as $5bn this year, based on analysis of internal financial figures and interviews with sources, as it amasses $8.5bn-worth of operating costs including $4bn a year on renting servers from Microsoft and $3bn a year on training models. Full-year revenue could be anywhere between $3.5bn and $4.5bn per year the Information reported, implying a loss of up to $5bn. San Francisco-based OpenAI makes money from charging companies to build consumer products using its models, or letting companies build in-house chatbots with its technology, as well as generating revenue from charging users $20 a month to access a more powerful version of ChatGPT. Google and Anthropic also sell subscriptions to AI systems for $20 a month, while Cohere sells its models to business customers for tasks such as coding or data analysis. The Information admitted its OpenAI calculations were “guesstimates” but if they are right, the company needs to raise cash over the next 12 months. OpenAI declined to comment, although with Microsoft as its main financial backer it could call upon a wealthy benefactor – albeit with regulators circling. But even as tech companies have been fighting for domination at the “frontier” of AI, investing billions in building bigger and better systems, a second front has opened up in a more traditional battle: cost. OpenAI’s most recent release isn’t GPT-4o, the headline-grabbing “multimodal” system that sounded so much like Scarlett Johansson that it sparked a lawsuit. Instead, it’s GPT-4o mini, a stripped-back version of the same AI that the company offers to third-party developers at less than 5% of the cost of its frontier system – undercutting the previous cheapest models, Google’s Gemini 1.5 Flash and Anthropic’s Claude 3 Haiku. On Tuesday, Meta’s release of the latest version of its Llama system undercut OpenAI. Again, while the attention was on the frontier version of the model, dubbed 405B, the company was equally eager to push its smallest LLM, 8B. Unlike its competitors, Llama is available for anyone to download and run on their own systems, with cloud providers such as Groq offering it for a third of the price of OpenAI’s competitor systems. Llama 3.1 8B underperforms those OpenAI equivalents, per benchmarks from Artificial Analysis, but for the price, who can complain? Meta calls Llama “open source”, although critics dispute the claim: it’s possible to download the model and use it with a fairly free licence but the training data remains entirely closed, and the model is not free for anyone to use for any purpose. Some of the restrictions are practical: the copyright status of training data for large language models is, at best, controversial. Meta keeps the specific data it trained Llama 3.1 on a secret, and almost certainly lacks the licence to redistribute it free of charge. Other restrictions have more commercial weight behind them. By keeping restrictions on Llama 3.1’s use in place, Meta places itself at the middle of any future sector that grows around its AI: even if it doesn’t charge directly for access to the model, it gets to control the direction of development, and can always close future avenues if competitors grow too big using its tech. On Tuesday, Zuckerberg said: “I believe the Llama 3.1 release will be an inflection point in the industry… I hope you’ll join us on this journey to bring the benefits of AI to everyone in the world.” For investors and other tech companies, those benefits need to produce a meaningful return.

July 28, 2024

Fw: Soldi pubblici, codice pubblico: la Svizzera obbliga l’open source nella pubblica amministrazione | DDay.it

by Angelo Raffaele Meo

________________________________ From: Angelo Raffaele Meo <angelo.meo(a)polito.it> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2024 7:06 PM To: Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it>; Mauro Alovisio <mauro.alovisio(a)gmail.com>; nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Cc: guido.boella <guido.boella(a)unito.it> Subject: Re: [nexa] Soldi pubblici, codice pubblico: la Svizzera obbliga l’open source nella pubblica amministrazione | DDay.it Mi permetto di aggiungere che da oltre 20 anni nelle PA italiana non si può adottare un prodotto sw proprietario se esiste un prodotto di sw libero che attua le stesse funzionalità (vedi il codice dell'amministrazione digitale). Ma quella norma è sistematicamente ignorata. Il nostro Paese spende per licenze sw una cifra che è dell'ordine di grandezza del reddito di cittadinanza, ma le spese verso USA per le licenze sono una perdita netta della ricchezza del Paese mentre il reddito di cittadinanza diventava un increnento del mercato nazionale perchè quei soldi restavano quasi tutti in Italia. Sto enunciando un teorema sbagliato? Girerò questo mail agli amici di Nexa e Assoli per sentire il parere di altri (ad esempio, aspetto il grande giurista Marco Ciurcina). Raf Meo ________________________________ From: Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 7:07 PM To: Mauro Alovisio <mauro.alovisio(a)gmail.com>; nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Cc: Angelo Raffaele Meo <angelo.meo(a)polito.it>; guido.boella <guido.boella(a)unito.it> Subject: Re: [nexa] Soldi pubblici, codice pubblico: la Svizzera obbliga l’open source nella pubblica amministrazione | DDay.it in Italia tutto il software sviluppato per conto della Pubblica Amministrazione deve essere reso disponibile con licenza open. le amministrazioni sono abbastanza renitenti, ma se si va al difensore civico digitale (o al tar) si vince regolarmente... On 26/07/24 12:53, Mauro Alovisio wrote: > Gent.mi > Segnalo > https://www.dday.it/redazione/50029/soldi-pubblici-codice-pubblico-la-svizz… <https://www.dday.it/redazione/50029/soldi-pubblici-codice-pubblico-la-svizz…> > > Un caro saluto > Mauro -- You can reach me on Signal: @quinta.01 (no Whatsapp)

July 27, 2024