July 2025 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

The first copyright ruling on generative AI training is a win for AI labs
by Enrico Nardelli July 26, 2025

July 26, 2025

(non mi pare la notizia sia passata in lista) https://www.understandingai.org/p/the-first-copyright-ruling-on-generative In realtà, se capisco bene, una vittoria parziale, perché il giudice ha stabilito che l'uso di copie pirata dei libri per addestrare il suo LLM fatto da Anthropic è illegale, ma solo perché le copie dei libri sono pirata. Quindi, sempre se capisco bene, qualora un'azienda invece i libri usati per addestrare un LLM li compri, allora l'addestramento non ha necessità di richiedere il consenso di chi detiene i diritti dei libri stessi, perché è un utilizzo trasformativo. Sbaglio/trascuro qualcosa? Grazie in anticipo, Enrico -- -- 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 ====================================================== --

3 2

Zitron, "The Hater's Guide To The AI Bubble"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 26, 2025

July 26, 2025

*The Hater's Guide To The AI Bubble* Edward Zitron Jul 21, 2025 55 min read Good journalism is making sure that history is actively captured and appropriately described and assessed, and it's accurate to describe things as they currently are as alarming. And I am /alarmed./ Alarm is not a state of weakness, or belligerence, or myopia. My concern does not dull my vision, even though it's convenient to frame it as somehow alarmist, like I have some hidden agenda or bias toward doom. I profoundly dislike the financial waste, the environmental destruction, and, fundamentally, I dislike the attempt to gaslight people into swearing fealty to a sickly and frail psuedo-industry where everybody but NVIDIA and consultancies lose money. I also dislike the fact that I, and others like me, are held to a remarkably different standard to those who paint themselves as "optimists," which typically means "people that agree with what the market wishes were true." Critics are continually badgered, prodded, poked, mocked, and jeered at for not automatically aligning with the idea that generative AI will be this massive industry, constantly having to prove themselves, as if somehow there's something malevolent or craven about criticism, that critics "do this for clicks" or "to be a contrarian." I don't do anything for clicks. I don't have any stocks or short positions. My agenda is simple: I like writing, it comes to me naturally, I have a podcast, and it is, on some level, my job to try and understand what the tech industry is doing on a day-to-day basis. It is easy to try and dismiss what I say as going against the grain because "AI is big," but I've been railing against bullshit bubbles since 2021 — the_anti-remote work push_ <https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-upcoming-remote-work-company/> (_and the people behind it_ <https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-big-media-anti-remote-op-ed-complex/>),_the Clubhouse and audio social networks bubble_ <https://www.wheresyoured.at/clubhouse-is-the-big-stinker-that/>,_the NFT bubble_ <https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-nihilism-and-exploitation-of/>,_the made-up quiet quitting panic_ <https://www.wheresyoured.at/quiet-quitting-and-the-death-of-office/>, and I even, though not as clearly as I wished,_called that something was up with FTX several months before it imploded_ <https://www.wheresyoured.at/sam-bankrun-fraud/>. This isn't "contrarianism." It's the kind of skepticism of power and capital that's necessary to meet these moments, and if it's necessary to dismiss my work because it makes you feel icky inside, get a therapist or see a priest. Nevertheless, I am /alarmed/, and while I have said some of these things separately, based on recent developments, I think it's necessary to say why. In short, I believe the AI bubble is deeply unstable, built on vibes and blind faith, and when I say "the AI bubble," I mean the entirety of the AI trade. And it's alarmingly simple, too. [...] continua qui: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-haters-gui/

1 0

La Danimarca inizia la battaglia contro i deepfake
by Diego Giorio July 26, 2025

July 26, 2025

Buongiorno a tutti. Non mi sembra che la notizia sia già passata in lista e credo possa essere di interesse https://privacyitaliana.com/2025/07/25/inizia-la-battaglia-contro-i-deepfak… Buon fine settimana a tutti D.

1 0

Explanatory Notice and Template for the Public Summary of Training Content for general-purpose AI models
by Antonio Vetro' July 24, 2025

July 24, 2025

Pubblicato oggi dalla Commissione Europea lo schema per la documentazione dei dati di training modelli c.d. “general-purpose" https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/explanatory-notice-and-tem…

1 0

Rapporto AAUP, "Artificial Intelligence and Academic Professions"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 24, 2025

July 24, 2025

*Artificial Intelligence and Academic Professions * American Association of University Professors https://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/aaup-policies-reports/topical-rep… Executive Summary Educational technology, or /ed-tech/, including artificial intelligence (AI), continues to become more integrated into teaching and research in higher education, with minimal oversight. The AAUP’s ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Academic Professions—composed of higher education faculty members, staff, and scholars interested in technology and its impact on academic labor—was formed under the assumption that faculty members are best positioned to understand and improve teaching and learning conditions, including the development and implementation of institutional policies around educational technology. To learn more about the experiences and priorities of AAUP members, the committee conducted a survey with a sample of five hundred members from nearly two hundred campuses across the country, collected during a two-week time period. Respondents emphasized the importance of improving education on AI, promoting shared governance through policies and oversight, and focusing on equity, transparency, and worker protections. Based on those responses, the committee identified the five key concerns listed below and described more fully in the findings section of this report. 1. Improving Professional Development Regarding AI and Technology Harms * Despite the widespread use of ed-tech, there is an overall lack of understanding about the relationship between AI and commonly used data-intensive educational technologies. * Untested and unproven technologies are adopted uncritically 2. Implementing Shared Governance Policies to Promote Oversight * AI integration initiatives are spearheaded by administrations with little input from faculty members and other campus community members, including staff and students. * High levels of concern arose around AI and technology procurement, deployment, and use; dehumanized relations; and poor working and learning conditions. 3. Improving Working and Learning Conditions * Preexisting work intensification and devaluation are the main reasons respondents give for using AI to assist with academic tasks. * Implementing AI in higher education adds to faculty and staff workloads and exacerbates long-standing inequities. * AI raises concerns around bias, discrimination, and accessibility because of the untested and uneven impacts on students and student learning. 4. Demanding Transparency and the Ability to Opt Out * Faculty members and staff lack choice and meaningful avenues to opt out of both AI-based tools and other ed-tech. * Few institutions have created transparent, equitable policies or provided effective professional development opportunities on AI use. 5. Protecting Faculty Members and Other Academic Workers * Academic workers across job categories are worried about increased reliance on contingent appointments and declining wages. * Respondents expressed concern about academic freedom and intellectual property rights. The report provides details on the survey’s findings about these concerns and addresses them with recommendations to improve higher education—both broadly and narrowly as it relates to emerging technologies. Faculty members can work to implement these recommendations on their campuses by incorporating guidelines in faculty handbooks and collective bargaining agreements. The recommendations can inform strategy for organizing and policymaking related to AI in higher education institutions and organized labor more generally. The ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Academic Professions has provided a resource guide <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O9XBMSMXxrdtN102xn7gQmJqew_dbFatY0d1CJL…> to help members implement the recommendations of this report.

1 0

"A major AI training data set contains millions of examples of personal data"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 24, 2025

July 24, 2025

*A major AI training data set contains millions of examples of personal data* /Personally identifiable information has been found in DataComp CommonPool, one of the largest open-source data sets used to train image generation models./ Eileen Guo July 18, 2025 Millions of images of passports, credit cards, birth certificates, and other documents containing personally identifiable information are likely included in one of the biggest open-source AI training sets, new research has found. Thousands of images—including identifiable faces—were found in a small subset of DataComp CommonPool, a major AI training set for image generation scraped from the web. Because the researchers audited just 0.1% of CommonPool’s data, they estimate that the real number of images containing personally identifiable information, including faces and identity documents, is in the hundreds of millions. The study that details the breach was published on arXiv earlier this month <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.17185>. [...] continua qui: https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/18/1120466/a-major-ai-training-dat…

1 0

White House Unveils America’s AI Action Plan
by Daniela Tafani July 24, 2025

July 24, 2025

White House Unveils America’s AI Action Plan The White House July 23, 2025 The White House today released “Winning the AI Race: America’s AI Action Plan”, in accordance with President Trump’s January executive order on Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI. Winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people. The Plan identifies over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars – Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security – that the Trump Administration will take in the coming weeks and months. Key policies in the AI Action Plan include: - Exporting American AI: The Commerce and State Departments will partner with industry to deliver secure, full-stack AI export packages – including hardware, models, software, applications, and standards – to America’s friends and allies around the world. - Promoting Rapid Buildout of Data Centers: Expediting and modernizing permits for data centers and semiconductor fabs, as well as creating new national initiatives to increase high-demand occupations like electricians and HVAC technicians. - Enabling Innovation and Adoption: Removing onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove. - Upholding Free Speech in Frontier Models: Updating Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias. “America’s AI Action Plan charts a decisive course to cement U.S. dominance in artificial intelligence. President Trump has prioritized AI as a cornerstone of American innovation, powering a new age of American leadership in science, technology, and global influence. This plan galvanizes Federal efforts to turbocharge our innovation capacity, build cutting-edge infrastructure, and lead globally, ensuring that American workers and families thrive in the AI era. We are moving with urgency to make this vision a reality,” said White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. “Artificial intelligence is a revolutionary technology with the potential to transform the global economy and alter the balance of power in the world. To remain the leading economic and military power, the United States must win the AI race. Recognizing this, President Trump directed us to produce this Action Plan. To win the AI race, the U.S. must lead in innovation, infrastructure, and global partnerships. At the same time, we must center American workers and avoid Orwellian uses of AI. This Action Plan provides a roadmap for doing that,” said AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks. “Winning the AI Race is non-negotiable. America must continue to be the dominant force in artificial intelligence to promote prosperity and protect our economic and national security. President Trump recognized this at the beginning of his administration and took decisive action by commissioning this AI Action Plan. These clear-cut policy goals set expectations for the Federal Government to ensure America sets the technological gold standard worldwide, and that the world continues to run on American technology,” said Secretary of State and Acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio. <https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai…>

1 0

Comment les entreprises de la tech nous forcent à utiliser l'IA
by Daniela Tafani July 23, 2025

July 23, 2025

L'IA accroît fortement les impacts environnementaux du numérique. Pour ne citer que quelques chiffres, 80% des data centers pourraient être désormais obsolètes et au cours du premier semestre 2023 l'Amérique du Nord a établi un nouveau record avec une augmentation de +25 % de construction de nouveaux centres de données. Poussées par des investissements massifs qu'il faut rentabiliser, par la promesse de nouvelles sources de profits ou par la peur de se voir dépassées, de nombreuses entreprises du numérique ont commencé à mettre en œuvre des fonctionnalités alimentées par l'IA. L'ajout de nouvelles fonctionnalités dans des applications ou des logiciels n'est bien sûr pas nouvelle en soi, mais ce qui frappe avec l'IA, c'est la manière dont les entreprises poussent à l'adoption de ces fonctionnalités, en particulier par le biais du design. Il nous semble que ce phénomène est inédit dans l'histoire des interfaces. Notre objectif avec cette enquête est d'analyser les multiples stratagèmes mis en place par les entreprises pour nous inciter à adopter l'IA, qu'on le veuille ou non. nalyse Au début de l'année 2024, nous avons commencé à remarquer que de nombreuses icônes d'IA apparaissaient dans les différents logiciels, sites web et applications que nous utilisions. Nous avons donc commencé à collecter systématiquement des captures d'écran de chaque changement d'interface lié à l'IA. Grâce au bouche à oreille et à un appel sur Mastodon, nous avons collecté plus d'une centaine de captures d'écran, tant dans les logiciels professionnels de productivité que dans d'autres types d'utilisation (loisirs, communication, créativité, etc.). En analysant ce corpus, nous constatons que les fonctionnalités basées sur l'IA sont proposées aux utilisateurs·ices de manière agressive, par diverses stratégies récurrentes. Lorsque nous comparons la manière dont les fonctions alimentées par l'IA sont introduites dans l'interface par rapport aux changements non liés à l'IA, le contraste est souvent saisissant et montre à quel point les fonctions d'IA occupent une place bien particulière. Voici donc comment les entreprises nous forcent à utiliser l'Intelligence Artificielle. Continua qui: <https://limitesnumeriques.fr/travaux-productions/ai-forcing> Qui la traduzione inglese: <https://limitesnumeriques.fr/travaux-productions/ai-forcing/en>

1 0

Re: [nexa] la questione dei commons e l'Internet, Era: "Stefano Rodotà (appositamente richiamato, dall’Aldilà mentre giocava a scacchi)"
by karlessi July 22, 2025

July 22, 2025

> Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:02:54 +0200 > From: Andrea Trentini <ego(a)atrent.it> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Subject: Re: [nexa] "Stefano Rodotà (appositamente richiamato > dall’Aldilà mentre giocava a scacchi)" > Message-ID: <be66ff6f-63e1-43d5-b87c-b3b49443d385(a)atrent.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 22/07/2025 09:51, Marco A. Calamari wrote: >> >> Il fatto che un componente del Garante venga attaccato in maniera pubblica mi sembra abbia una >> rilevanza generale. >> Il problema è appunto che diffondere il documento in lista amplierebbe la diffusione dello stesso, >> per cui lo vedrei inopportuno. anche io. ho ricevuto la fantomatica mail dall'indirizzo rodota.dallaldila(a)libero.it che invia evidentemente a una lista in CCN, oltre che a se stesso, all'indirizzo ricevente rodota.dallaldila(a)gmail.com ringrazio chi si è presa la briga di risparmiarmi anche solo di scorrerla (mi era bastata l'immagine fakestudioghibli a farmi passare la voglia, oltre allo screenshot della prima pagina nel corpo della mail) >> >> Decidete se, date le abitudini della lista, l'argomento merita di essere discusso in questo modo >> "asimmetrico" e non paritario. >> Io personalmente sarei favorevole. > personalmente mi interessa invece la questione commons e Internet, anzi, commons e tecnologia in generale. Tecnologie appropriate, conviviali, ecc. Tempo fa ho tradotto un libretto in merito (ai commons, non a Internet), rendendo "commons" con "beni collettivi". Ecco perché in breve: https://www.eleuthera.it/materiale.php?op=3299 la questione mi sembra rilevante per le risorse tecnologiche e via discorrendo. Perché un conto è sostenere che Internet è un "bene comune" nell'accezione della Commissione Rodotà, per cui: "In ogni caso deve essere garantita la loro fruizione collettiva, nei limiti e secondo le modalità fissati dalla legge" [1] tutt'altra questione è il "bene collettivo" nel senso a mio parere inteso da Elinor Ostrom quando analizza i "commons": - non vi è alcuna legge stabilita garante a regolare i commons - vi sono dinamiche di regolamentazione complessa, gestite da individui e comunità direttamente implicate nell'accesso, fruizione, distribuzione, manutenzione, sanzione eventuale, esclusione, ecc. - negli esempi riferiti da Ostrom per sostanziare il concetto di "commons", quindi, non c'è quindi ALCUN livello politico ulteriore rispetto all'autogestione. Non c'è un "Comune", organi dirigenziali che decidono quali ipostasi governanti il bene; tanto meno vi è un'Istituzione (Stato, Legge, ecc.) di stampo liberale e/o democratico e/o repubblicano, ecc.: ci sono le persone e le difficili relazioni fra di loro e con il loro ambiente. - i "commons" sono molto più vicini all'autogoverno che alle proposte dei "beni comuni", mi pare. Ma non sono nemmeno autogoverno, IMHO (questo aprirebbe un'altra discussione sulla necessità filosofica del governo, che esula dalla questione, almeno in parte). Sono organizzazione dal basso di ciò che interessa (inter-est: sta-tra, fra gli umani, e fra gli umani e il mondo). niente di più niente di meno. ritengo che sia cruciale, in questi tempi terribili, ragionare di commons tecnologici in questo senso. Perché il nostro ambiente ora comprende, è ovvio, anche l'ambiente tecnologico, in particolare gli ambienti tecnologici connessi a Internet. Tali "commons tecnologici" non sono quindi da intendersi come "beni comuni" nel senso della Commissione Rodotà, che interpreto come, ad esempio, "diritto all'Internet", alla connettività, ecc ecc cioè diritti fondamentali teoricamente inalienabili ma in pratica continuamente alienati, che dovrebbero essere garantiti in ultima istanza dalla legge (quella stessa legge che al momento è completamente disattesa per quanto riguarda GDPR e dintorni, fra l'altro - ma questo apre tutt'altro capitolo sullo strapotere delle multinazionali, l'insipienza criminale delle PA, il "così fan tutti", ecc.). Sono invece da intendersi come la costruzione possibile, sulla scorta degli esempi storici dell'acqua, delle risorse ittiche, forestali, ecc. ecc. studiati da Ostrom, di "beni tecnologici collettivi". Che non vuol dire collettivizzati, s'intende. Non vuol dire nemmeno gratuiti. E nemmeno liberi per tutti! L'accesso al "commons" risorse di pesca dell'area tal dei tali, raccontava Ostrom, NON è per tutti e chiunque. Analogamente, "beni tecnologici collettivi" dovrebbero essere accessibili solo a chi è intitolato a farlo dal collettivo stesso, nelle forme regolamentate da tale collettivo (commons). La legge, semmai, arriva dopo. Ma è anche superflua, IMHO, nella misura in cui le persone sanno gestire collettivamente le risorse in quanto commons. utopie? forse. ma pur sempre meglio delle distopie realizzate in cui stiamo vivendo. anche solo nel settore tech, difficile trovare delle big che non siano direttamente implicate, per dirne una, nel supporto alle guerre condotte dal governo israeliano: https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/all buona giornata k. PS: ripubblicare l'opera fondamentale del premio Nobel Ostrom in italiano sarebbe il minimo. Esaurita da parecchio, ho dovuto ricorrere a una copia della biblioteca della fondazione Basso di Roma [1] https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_12_1.page?contentId=SPS47624 art. 1 / 3c > > +1 > > p.s. ho ricevuto anche io la mail da "rodotà" >

1 0

[Responsible AI Talk] The Parity Benchmark, Shmona Simpson, CEO and Founder of Paritii
by Daniele Quercia July 22, 2025

July 22, 2025

The Parity Benchmark: A Multimodal Framework for Assessing Bias in LLMs Shmona Simpson, CEO and Founder of Paritii<https://www.paritii.com/> Join the meeting <https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZTQ5NWI2MjktY2UyMy00…> Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities but remain susceptible to harmful biases that can reinforce inequity across domains like content moderation, healthcare, and decision-making. The Parity Benchmark offers a rigorous, multimodal framework to evaluate such biases across protected characteristics including gender, race, socioeconomic status, and intersectional identities. Using an expert-curated dataset, the benchmark assesses leading LLMs such as Granite 3.8 against GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3, DeepSeekR-1, and Gemini. The data will show which LLM’s perform best across categories such as ageism, supremacism, colorism, homophobia, disability and neurodivergence. Future iterations of the benchmark will expand to include image-based evaluations, open-ended free-text prompts, and integrated multimodal analytics—providing a richer, real-world assessment of AI fairness. Initial results show that models excel differently across tasks, suggesting opportunities for targeted bias mitigation. The Parity Benchmark aims to serve as a practical, evolving tool for researchers, developers, and policymakers committed to building more equitable and accountable AI systems. <https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02191>Bio: Dr. Shmona Simpson is the visionary CEO and Founder of Paritii<https://www.paritii.com/>, a pioneering platformdedicated to advancing equity in technology through data-driven frameworks and innovation. A recognized leader in AI ethics and technology strategy, Shmona specializes in developing solutions that promote fairness, accountability, and transparency within AI systems. Her recent development of The Parity Benchmark<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00613-4>, published by Springer in 2025, underscores her commitment to Responsible AI. This groundbreaking framework provides a robust, data-informed approach to evaluating and enhancing fairness within machine learning systems. By identifying and mitigating biases, The Parity Benchmark equips researchers, developers, and organizations with actionable insights to create competitive, responsible AI technologies. Under Shmona’s leadership, Paritii has emerged as a trusted resource for organizations aiming to build ethical AI systems that serve broad communities. Her expertise in AI ethics and strategic innovation continues to shape critical conversations about how technology can be harnessed to promote equity and accountability. Swyft, Paritii's flagship AI solution for broad access higher education institutions, streamlines academic operations with intelligent automation. Swyft handles high-volume administrative tasks like registration, financial aid workflows, and compliance tracking—freeing up staff time and improving the student experience at scale. Swyft is available at institutions across the country<http://www.tryswyft.com/>. An influential voice in the tech industry, Shmona is a sought-after advisor and speaker on AI ethics, fairness frameworks, and the broader implications of responsible technology development. She has been invited to share her perspective at SXSW, ASU-GSV, MITRE, IBM, and Anita B.org. Before founding Paritii, she served as a Strategist at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where she strengthened health systems across diverse regions and led cross-functional initiatives to improve organizational impact. Shmona holds a DPhil from Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. Subscribe to future talk announcements: Anyone outside Bell Labs can receive talk announcements by subscribing to the mailing list. To subscribe, send an empty email with the subject line "Subscribe RAI" to daniele.quercia(a)nokia-bell-labs.com<mailto:daniele.quercia@nokia-bell-labs.com>.

1 0