- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Piano triennale per l’informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione
by Antonio Feb. 17, 2024

Feb. 17, 2024

Pubblicata l'edizione 2024-2026 del Piano triennale per l'informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione. [PDF] https://www.agid.gov.it/sites/default/files/repository_files/piano_triennal… [EPUB] https://docs.italia.it/projects/pianotriennale-ict-doc/downloads/epub/2024-… [HTML] https://docs.italia.it/italia/piano-triennale-ict/pianotriennale-ict-doc/it… Le novità rispetto al passato non potevano non riguardare l'Intelligenza artificiale. Qui sotto i link diretti al capitolo e agli "strumenti": - https://github.com/italia/pianotriennale-ict-doc/blob/2024-2026/capitolo-5_… - https://github.com/italia/pianotriennale-ict-doc/blob/2024-2026/strumenti/s… A.

1 0

Tech firms sign ‘reasonable precautions’ to stop AI-generated election chaos | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo Feb. 17, 2024

Feb. 17, 2024

<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/16/tech-companies-precautio…> Major technology companies signed a pact Friday to voluntarily adopt “reasonable precautions” to prevent artificial intelligence tools from being used to disrupt democratic elections around the world. Executives from Adobe, Amazon, Google, IBM, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI and TikTok gathered at the Munich Security Conference to announce a new framework for how they respond to AI-generated deepfakes that deliberately trick voters. Twelve other companies – including Elon Musk’s X – are also signing on to the accord. “Everybody recognizes that no one tech company, no one government, no one civil society organization is able to deal with the advent of this technology and its possible nefarious use on their own,” said Nick Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, in an interview ahead of the summit. The accord is largely symbolic, but targets increasingly realistic AI-generated images, audio and video “that deceptively fake or alter the appearance, voice, or actions of political candidates, election officials, and other key stakeholders in a democratic election, or that provide false information to voters about when, where, and how they can lawfully vote”. The companies aren’t committing to ban or remove deepfakes. Instead, the accord outlines methods they will use to try to detect and label deceptive AI content when it is created or distributed on their platforms. It notes the companies will share best practices with each other and provide “swift and proportionate responses” when that content starts to spread. The vagueness of the commitments and lack of any binding requirements likely helped win over a diverse swath of companies, but disappointed advocates were looking for stronger assurances. “The language isn’t quite as strong as one might have expected,” said Rachel Orey, senior associate director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “I think we should give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge that the companies do have a vested interest in their tools not being used to undermine free and fair elections. That said, it is voluntary, and we’ll be keeping an eye on whether they follow through.” Clegg said each company “quite rightly has its own set of content policies”. “This is not attempting to try to impose a straitjacket on everybody,” he said. “And in any event, no one in the industry thinks that you can deal with a whole new technological paradigm by sweeping things under the rug and trying to play Whac-a-Mole and finding everything that you think may mislead someone.” Several political leaders from Europe and the US also joined Friday’s announcement. Vera Jourová, the European Commission vice-president, said while such an agreement can’t be comprehensive, “it contains very impactful and positive elements”. She also urged fellow politicians to take responsibility to not use AI tools deceptively and warned that AI-fueled disinformation could bring about “the end of democracy, not only in the EU member states”. The agreement at the German city’s annual security meeting comes as more than 50 countries are due to hold national elections in 2024. Bangladesh, Taiwan, Pakistan and most recently Indonesia have already done so. Attempts at AI-generated election interference have already begun, such as when AI robocalls that mimicked the US president Joe Biden’s voice tried to discourage people from voting in New Hampshire’s primary election last month. Just days before Slovakia’s elections in November, AI-generated audio recordings impersonated a candidate discussing plans to raise beer prices and rig the election. Fact-checkers scrambled to identify them as false as they spread across social media. Politicians also have experimented with the technology, from using AI chatbots to communicate with voters to adding AI-generated images to ads. The accord calls on platforms to “pay attention to context and in particular to safeguarding educational, documentary, artistic, satirical, and political expression”. It said the companies will focus on transparency to users about their policies and work to educate the public about how they can avoid falling for AI fakes. Most companies have previously said they’re putting safeguards on their own generative AI tools that can manipulate images and sound, while also working to identify and label AI-generated content so that social media users know if what they’re seeing is real. But most of those proposed solutions haven’t yet rolled out and the companies have faced pressure to do more. That pressure is heightened in the US, where Congress has yet to pass laws regulating AI in politics, leaving companies to largely govern themselves. The Federal Communications Commission recently confirmed AI-generated audio clips in robocalls are against the law, but that doesn’t cover audio deepfakes when they circulate on social media or in campaign advertisements. Many social media companies already have policies in place to deter deceptive posts about electoral processes – AI-generated or not. Meta says it removes misinformation about “the dates, locations, times, and methods for voting, voter registration, or census participation” as well as other false posts meant to interfere with someone’s civic participation. Jeff Allen, co-founder of the Integrity Institute and a former Facebook data scientist, said the accord seems like a “positive step” but he’d still like to see social media companies taking other actions to combat misinformation, such as building content recommendation systems that don’t prioritize engagement above all else. Lisa Gilbert, executive vice-president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, argued Friday that the accord is “not enough” and AI companies should “hold back technology” such as hyper-realistic text-to-video generators “until there are substantial and adequate safeguards in place to help us avert many potential problems”. In addition to the companies that helped broker Friday’s agreement, other signatories include chatbot developers Anthropic and Inflection AI; voice-clone startup ElevenLabs; chip designer Arm Holdings; security companies McAfee and TrendMicro; and Stability AI, known for making the image-generator Stable Diffusion. Notably absent is another popular AI image-generator, Midjourney. The San Francisco-based startup didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. The inclusion of X – not mentioned in an earlier announcement about the pending accord – was one of the surprises of Friday’s agreement. Musk sharply curtailed content-moderation teams after taking over the former Twitter and has described himself as a “free-speech absolutist”. In a statement Friday, X CEO Linda Yaccarino said “every citizen and company has a responsibility to safeguard free and fair elections”. “X is dedicated to playing its part, collaborating with peers to combat AI threats while also protecting free speech and maximizing transparency,” she said.

1 0

Re: [nexa] Chiamata al mondo della ricerca e delle università per l’utilizzo dell’IA a supporto del lavoro parlamentare
by alessandro marzocchi Feb. 16, 2024

Feb. 16, 2024

Altra bella questione. Le leggi - prodotto del lavoro parlamentare - spesso sono aggrovigliate ancor più che complicate, ed il problema non è soltanto nazionale. Un esempio viene dalla frequenza delle leggi cosddette di semplificazione, mi scuso per la dozzinalità ma se il legislatore vuole semplificare è perchè ritiene troppo complicato quanto c'è. Esempio un poco più nobile viene dalla disciplina sottinttesa dagli acronimi AIR, VIR, ATN rispettivamente per analisi impatto della regolazione, valutazione impatto regolatorio, analisi tecnico normativa. Semplifico per arrivare al dunque: basterebbero buon senso ed equilibrio, che molto difficilmente entrano nelle aule parlamentari - nuovamente non penso solo all'Italia od all'UE -. La politica è contrapposizione ed a poco serve l'art 67 Costituzione che prova a dare all'eletto una missione "nazionale", di tutti, e non soltanto partitica, di parte. Altro che IA ... Da giovane ho sperato che l'informatica, questo era il nome di allora, portasse al diritto razionalità ma ha vinto l'acronimo GIGO, Garbages In Garbages Out. Non spero in quest'ultimo appello ma ancora una volta sarò felice di sbagliare. Comunque rimane un gran bell'argomento, complimenti per averlo proposto. Cordialmente. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:29:39 +0100 > > From: Antonio <antonio(a)piumarossa.it> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Subject: [nexa] Chiamata al mondo della ricerca e delle università > per l’utilizzo dell’IA a supporto del lavoro parlamentare > Message-ID: <20240216122939.ce3836794264219c96cf0c10(a)piumarossa.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > La Camera dei deputati si rivolge al mondo della ricerca e dell’università > per l’utilizzo dell’intelligenza artificiale a supporto del lavoro > parlamentare [2]. I progetti possono essere inviati fino al 31 maggio [2] > ... > La manifestazione di interesse [3] è rivolta a giovani studiosi, > ricercatori, centri di competenze universitari, enti di ricerca e intende > raccogliere progetti di utilizzo dell'Intelligenza artificiale generativa > per reperire e organizzare informazioni qualificate, per supportare la > predisposizione degli atti di iniziativa, per far conoscere la > documentazione e l’attività parlamentare in modo più completo e inclusivo. > > A. > p.s. spero e mi auguro che ci siano, quanto meno, dei progetti "open" > > [1] Manifestazione d'interesse -> > https://comunicazione.camera.it/sites/comunicazione/files/notiz_prima_pag/a… > [2] https://comunicazione.camera.it/archivio-prima-pagina/19-37666 > [3] Rapporto - Utilizzare l'intelligenza artificiale a supporto del lavoro > parlamentare -> > https://comunicazione.camera.it/sites/comunicazione/files/notiz_prima_pag/a… >

1 0

Chiamata al mondo della ricerca e delle università per l’utilizzo dell’IA a supporto del lavoro parlamentare
by Antonio Feb. 16, 2024

Feb. 16, 2024

La Camera dei deputati si rivolge al mondo della ricerca e dell’università per l’utilizzo dell’intelligenza artificiale a supporto del lavoro parlamentare [2]. I progetti possono essere inviati fino al 31 maggio [2] ... La manifestazione di interesse [3] è rivolta a giovani studiosi, ricercatori, centri di competenze universitari, enti di ricerca e intende raccogliere progetti di utilizzo dell'Intelligenza artificiale generativa per reperire e organizzare informazioni qualificate, per supportare la predisposizione degli atti di iniziativa, per far conoscere la documentazione e l’attività parlamentare in modo più completo e inclusivo. A. p.s. spero e mi auguro che ci siano, quanto meno, dei progetti "open" [1] Manifestazione d'interesse -> https://comunicazione.camera.it/sites/comunicazione/files/notiz_prima_pag/a… [2] https://comunicazione.camera.it/archivio-prima-pagina/19-37666 [3] Rapporto - Utilizzare l'intelligenza artificiale a supporto del lavoro parlamentare -> https://comunicazione.camera.it/sites/comunicazione/files/notiz_prima_pag/a…

1 0

siamo davvero irripetibili? was: sistemi di IA e scrittura
by alessandro marzocchi Feb. 15, 2024

Feb. 15, 2024

Siamo davvero irripetibili? Mi appassiona la domanda: davvero i nostri cervelli funzionano diversamente dall'IA? Cordialmente, Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) Il 9 feb 2024 alle ore 12:00 <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Daniela Tafani ha scritto: > > Grazie della segnalazione, Maurizio. > Sono domande che Joseph Weizenbaum poneva, anche a proposito della > comprensione del linguaggio naturale, > in Computer power and human reason: > > The second kind of computer application that ought to be avoided, or at > least not undertaken without very careful forethought, > is that which can easily be seen to have irreversible and not entirely > foreseeable side effects. If, in addition, such an application cannot > be shown to meet a pressing human need that cannot readily be met in any > other way, then it ought not to be pursued. The latter stricture > follows directly from the argument I have already presented about the > scarcity of human intelligence. > The example I wish to cite here is that of the automatic recognition of > human speech. There are now three or four major > projects in the United States devoted to enabling computers to understand > human speech, that is, to programming them in such a > way that verbal speech directed at them can be converted into the same > internal representations that would result if what had been said > to them had been typed into their consoles. > The problem, as can readily be seen, is very much more complicated than > that of natural-language understanding as such, for > in order to understand a stream of coherent speech, the language in which > that speech is rendered must be understood in the first place. > The solution of the "speech-understanding problem" therefore presupposes > the solution of the "natural-language-understanding > problem." And we have seen that, for the latter, we have only "the tiniest > bit of relevant knowledge." But I am not here concerned with > the technical feasibility of the task, nor with any estimate of just how > little or greatly optimistic we might be about its completion. > Why should we want to undertake this task at all? I have asked this > question of many enthusiasts for the project. The most cheerful > answer I have been able to get is that it will help physicians record > their medical notes and then translate these notes into action more > efficiently. Of course, anything that has any ostensible connection to > medicine is automatically considered good. But here we have to > remember that the problem is so enormous that only the largest possible > computers will ever be able to manage it. In other words, > even if the desired system were successfully designed, it would probably > require a computer so large and therefore so expensive > that only the largest and best-endowed hospitals could possibly afford > it—but in fact the whole system might be so prohibitively > expensive that even they could not afford it. The question then becomes, > is this really what medicine needs most at this time? > Would not the talent, not to mention the money and the resources it > represents, be better spent on projects that attack more urgent and > more fundamental problems of health care? > But then, this alleged justification of speech-recognition "research" is > merely a rationalization anyway. (I put the word > "research" in quotation marks because the work I am here discussing is > mere tinkering. I have no objection to serious scientists > studying the psycho-physiology of human speech recognition.) If one asks > such questions of the principal sponsor of this work, the > Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department > of Defense, as was recently done at an open meeting, > the answer given is that the Navy hopes to control its ships, and the > other services their weapons, by voice commands. This project then > represents, in the eyes of its chief sponsor, a long step toward a fully > automated battlefield. I see no reason to advise my students to lend > their talents to that aim. > I have urged my students and colleagues to ask still another question > about this project: Granted that a speech-recognition > machine is bound to be enormously expensive, and that only governments and > possibly a very few very large corporations will > therefore be able to afford it, what will they use it for? What can it > possibly be used for? There is no question in my mind that there is > no pressing human problem that will more easily be solved because such > machines exist. But such listening machines, could they be > made, will make monitoring of voice communication very much easier than it > now is. Perhaps the only reason that there is very little > government surveillance of telephone conversations in many countries of > the world is that such surveillance takes so much > manpower. Each conversation on a tapped phone must eventually be listened > to by a human agent. But speech-recognizing machines > could delete all "uninteresting" conversations and present transcripts of > only the remaining ones to their masters. I do not for a moment > believe that we will achieve this capability within the future so clearly > visible to Newell and Simon. But I do ask, why should a talented > computer technologist lend his support to such a project? As a citizen I > ask, why should my government spend approximately 2.5 > million dollars a year (as it now does) on this project? > > https://archive.org/details/computerpowerhum0000weiz_v0i3/page/270 > > Un saluto, > Daniela > ________________________________________ > Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di maurizio lana < > maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it> > Inviato: giovedì 8 febbraio 2024 16:57 > A: NEXA ML > Oggetto: [nexa] sistemi di IA e scrittura > > mi sono imbattuto in questo libro: > Baron, Naomi S. Who wrote this? how AI and the lure of efficiency threaten > human writing. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2023. > > nel capitolo finale l'autrice scrive: > Imagine a world where AI’s current writing challenges have been solved. > Where large language models (or their successors) don’t churn out ugliness. > Where using them is energy efficient. Where predictive texting, spellcheck, > and grammar programs are infallible. Where AI can produce lengthy texts > that are non-repetitive, stylistically interesting, factually accurate, and > always on topic. Oh, and can generate text that’s indistinguishable from > what you might have written. Where would this world leave us humans? > As we weigh options, keep in mind potential blowback of getting what we > wish for. Cultural lore—be it of King Midas in Greek mythology, the > recurrent “three wishes” stories across European tales, or W. W. Jacobs’s > more modern “The Monkey’s Paw”—reminds us that attractive prospects may > bear unforeseen consequences. > lo trovo interessante perché molta parte della riflessione critica sui > sistemi di AI si appunta su singoli aspetti mal-funzionanti/dis-funzionanti. > mentre qui c'è una riflessione critica globale, 'a prescindere', che si > esprime sui sistemi di IA ma che riguarda ogni ambito: è desiderabile/quali > conseguenze ha, che in ogni campo ogni necessità sia risolta e ogni > difficoltà operativa sia eliminata ? > "teletrasporto per tutti a costo zero" e via in cima al monte Bianco con > un tasto (in questo esempio si vede che sono proprio uno al pie' dei monti > - piemontese): che cosa mi significherebbe? > > Maurizio > > > ________________________________ > > quanti nella loro vita > si fecero custodi delle termopili, > sono degni di più grande onore > se prevedono (e molti lo prevedono) > che all’ultimo comparirà un efialte > e comunque i persiani passeranno > kostantinos kavafis, termopili > > ________________________________ > Maurizio Lana > Università del Piemonte Orientale > Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici > Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli > > > >

5 4

#DiPLab 2024 webinar on platform workers' mobilization (26 Feb. 2024)
by Antonio Casilli Feb. 13, 2024

Feb. 13, 2024

Dear all, We are excited to announce the start of our 2024 #DiPLab seminar series with an engaging full-day webinar titled “Collective Mobilization and Digital Labor: Precarity in the Platform Economy between South America and Europe”: https://diplab.eu/webinar-collective-mobilization-and-digital-labor-between… Date: 26th February 2024 Time: 🇧🇷 9:00-16:30 Brasília Time (BRT – UTC-3) 🇬🇧 12:00-19:30 London (UTC) 🇫🇷 13:00-20:30 Paris (UTC+1) Participation is FREE, but registration is required. Registration Link: https://forms.gle/xxfbh16fpDNhsbut5 Communications will be delivered in English and Portuguese. Download program in English: https://diplab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Collective-Mobilization-and-Di… Download program in Portuguese: https://diplab.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Mobilizacao-Coletiva-e-Trabalh… Program: Session 1 – Informality, Collective Mobilization and Global Data Supply Chain 🇧🇷 9:00 🇬🇧 12:00 🇫🇷 13:00 Ludmila Costhek Abilio (Instituto de Estudos Avançados, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil): Uberization and Informalization Process: Periphery and the Future of Work. Jonas Valente (Oxford Internet Institute, Universidade de Oxford, England): Workers’ Association and Resistance in Cloudwork Digital Labour Platforms: Challenges and Opportunities. Baptiste Delmas (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France): Resources and Limits of Law in Collective Mobilizations of Platform Workers in Europe. Session 2 – Piecework, Artificial Intelligence, and Mobilizations Perspectives 🇧🇷 13:30 🇬🇧 16:30 🇫🇷 17:30 Antonio Casilli (Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Télécom Paris, France): Where does Artificial Intelligence come from? Mobilization Perspectives in the Global Labor Markets of Data. Laura Valle Gontijo (Universidade de Brasília, UNB, Brazil): Impacts of piecework on platform workers’ consciousness. Matheus Viana Braz (Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais, UEMG, Brazil): Click Work and Collective Mobilization: Tensions and Resistances in the Global South. This event, co-organized by Matheus Viana Braz and myself, marks a continued collaboration between researchers from the DiPLab and LATRAPS research groups, after the publication in 2023 of the report "Microwork in Brazil": https://diplab.eu/who-trains-the-data-for-artificial-intelligence-in-brazil… If you know anyone who might be interested, please forward this information to them. Cheers, Antonio Casilli -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Telecom Paris | Institut Polytechnique de Paris (Until Oct. 2024) Invited professor, Center for Internet & Society, Paris (CNRS) Associate researcher, Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society, Berlin Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society, Turin *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for this email send time. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not mandatory*

1 0

Just AI Lab - borse di dottorato
by Guido Noto La Diega Feb. 12, 2024

Feb. 12, 2024

Carissime/i, questo bando di dottorato sara' d'interesse per chiunque voglia condurre ricerche sui profili giuridici dell'Intelligenza Artificiale e su come questa possa essere messa al servizio dell'umanita'. The University of Stirling’s Just AI Lab <https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/research-degrees/institute-for-advanced-stu…> is inviting applications for a number of fully-funded PhDs about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the law. The Lab’s mission is to assist the just transition to socially just, trustworthy, responsible, open, inclusive, and sustainable AI through impactful mission-oriented interdisciplinary research. The guide for applicants is here <https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/research-degrees/institute-for-advanced-stu…>. Applicants are encouraged to reach out to the Lab’s Director Professor Guido Noto La Diega <justailab(a)stir.ac.uk> to discuss initial ideas, and to register for the information webinars on the 7th March <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fevents.te…> and on the 12th March <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fevents.te…>. Research proposals and personal statements are to be submitted by 25th March. Con preghiera di diffusione, Guido Prof. Guido Noto La Diega, PhD FHEA Avv Chair in Intellectual Property & Technology Law* @stirlaw <https://twitter.com/StirLaw>* Martin-Flynn Global Law Professor @UConn <https://law.uconn.edu/faculty/martin-flynn-global-law-faculty/> Fellow @nexacenter <https://nexa.polito.it/about-en> E: notoladiega(a)gmail.com Find me on LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/guido-noto-la-diega-6696146/> and BlueSky <https://bsky.app/profile/guidonld.bsky.social> <https://bsky.app/profile/guidonld.bsky.social> For open access to my research, my blog, and more: https://linktr.ee/guidonld To freely download my book *Internet of Things and the Law *(Routledge 2022) click here <https://guidonotoladiega.wordpress.com/buy-the-book-iot-law/>

1 0

MEMENTO | 169° Mercoledì di Nexa | 14 febbraio 2024, ore 17.00
by Valeria Bergantino Feb. 12, 2024

Feb. 12, 2024

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì 14 febbraio*, alle ore 17.00, si terrà il *169° Mercoledì di Nexa* con un incontro dal titolo /*"*//*Blurring boundaries: an analysis of the digital platforms-military nexus*//*"*/. Ospite dell'incontro: *Dario Guarascio* (Sapienza Università di Roma)/*.*/ _L'incontro si terrà IN PRESENZA e ONLINE._ _SEDE FISICA_ dell'incontro: Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano). Per accedere alla sala si raccomanda di suonare al citofono *Portineria* e di seguire le indicazioni segnalate lungo il percorso. QUI <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci. _STANZA VIRTUALE_ dell'incontro: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent Maggiori informazioni alla pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-169 <https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-169> Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Officer Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ <https://nexa.polito.it/> mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it <mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

1 0

sistemi di IA e scrittura
by maurizio lana Feb. 10, 2024

Feb. 10, 2024

mi sono imbattuto in questo libro: Baron, Naomi S. /Who wrote this? how AI and the lure of efficiency threaten human writing/. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2023. nel capitolo finale l'autrice scrive: > Imagine a world where AI’s current writing challenges have been > solved. Where large language models (or their successors) don’t churn > out ugliness. Where using them is energy efficient. Where predictive > texting, spellcheck, and grammar programs are infallible. Where AI can > produce lengthy texts that are non-repetitive, stylistically > interesting, factually accurate, and always on topic. Oh, and can > generate text that’s indistinguishable from what you might have > written. Where would this world leave us humans? > As we weigh options, keep in mind potential blowback of getting what > we wish for. Cultural lore—be it of King Midas in Greek mythology, the > recurrent “three wishes” stories across European tales, or W. W. > Jacobs’s more modern “The Monkey’s Paw”—reminds us that attractive > prospects may bear unforeseen consequences. lo trovo interessante perché molta parte della riflessione critica sui sistemi di AI si appunta su singoli aspetti mal-funzionanti/dis-funzionanti. mentre qui c'è una riflessione critica globale, 'a prescindere', che si esprime sui sistemi di IA ma che riguarda ogni ambito: è desiderabile/quali conseguenze ha, che in ogni campo ogni necessità sia risolta e ogni difficoltà operativa sia eliminata ? "teletrasporto per tutti a costo zero" e via in cima al monte Bianco con un tasto (in questo esempio si vede che sono proprio uno al pie' dei monti - piemontese): che cosa mi significherebbe? Maurizio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quanti nella loro vita si fecero custodi delle termopili, sono degni di più grande onore se prevedono (e molti lo prevedono) che all’ultimo comparirà un efialte e comunque i persiani passeranno kostantinos kavafis, termopili ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

3 3

Re: [nexa] sistemi di IA e scrittura
by maurizio lana Feb. 10, 2024

Feb. 10, 2024

ciao Daniela, grazie di questo richiamo a Weizenbaum. a me pare che Baron sia ancora più radicale di Weizenbaum con la sua domanda "Where would this world leave us humans?" (che può benissimo essere posta a conclusione anche del passo di Weizenbaum) dopo tempi in cui abbiamo cercato di ridurre con le macchine, ed eliminare, la necessità di azione fisica degli umani perché ciò era liberazione da dolore e malattie e perché la quantità di azione fisica limitava la vita con le ore di lavoro e con il consumo precoce del fisico; ora analogamente abbiamo un'inerzia (una spinta inerziale) che ci porta a pensare che anche nel lavoro intellettuale sia buona cosa che le macchie ci supportino (qui siamo sempre a Licklider e Engelbart) ma l'inerzia va oltre e ammette che sia buona cosa che le macchine ci sostituiscano nel lavoro intellettuale, nella produzione intellettuale. quel che forse è peggio, trattandosi di SALAMI non sono in realtà in grado di sostituirci, ma molti lo credono. Baron però dice a mio avviso una cosa ancora più destabilizzante: se anche i SALAMI non fossero salami ma autentiche intelligenze, "where would this world leave us humans?" "dove ci lascerebbe" è una buona metafora per sintetizzare un insieme di domande di filosofia politica: sarebbe appropriato? sarebbe etico? sarebbe desiderabile? sarebbe utile? e poi, per chi: per tutti per alcuni, per pochi? Maurizio > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 17:44:33 +0000 > From: Daniela Tafani<daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> > To: maurizio lana<maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it>, NEXA ML > <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] sistemi di IA e scrittura > Message-ID:<9522eafc77af43599e0fc09909447af3(a)unipi.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Grazie della segnalazione, Maurizio. > Sono domande che Joseph Weizenbaum poneva, anche a proposito della comprensione del linguaggio naturale, > in Computer power and human reason: > > The second kind of computer application that ought to be avoided, or at least not undertaken without very careful forethought, > is that which can easily be seen to have irreversible and not entirely foreseeable side effects. If, in addition, such an application cannot > be shown to meet a pressing human need that cannot readily be met in any other way, then it ought not to be pursued. The latter stricture > follows directly from the argument I have already presented about the scarcity of human intelligence. > The example I wish to cite here is that of the automatic recognition of human speech. There are now three or four major > projects in the United States devoted to enabling computers to understand human speech, that is, to programming them in such a > way that verbal speech directed at them can be converted into the same internal representations that would result if what had been said > to them had been typed into their consoles. > The problem, as can readily be seen, is very much more complicated than that of natural-language understanding as such, for > in order to understand a stream of coherent speech, the language in which that speech is rendered must be understood in the first place. > The solution of the "speech-understanding problem" therefore presupposes the solution of the "natural-language-understanding > problem." And we have seen that, for the latter, we have only "the tiniest bit of relevant knowledge." But I am not here concerned with > the technical feasibility of the task, nor with any estimate of just how little or greatly optimistic we might be about its completion. > Why should we want to undertake this task at all? I have asked this question of many enthusiasts for the project. The most cheerful > answer I have been able to get is that it will help physicians record their medical notes and then translate these notes into action more > efficiently. Of course, anything that has any ostensible connection to medicine is automatically considered good. But here we have to > remember that the problem is so enormous that only the largest possible computers will ever be able to manage it. In other words, > even if the desired system were successfully designed, it would probably require a computer so large and therefore so expensive > that only the largest and best-endowed hospitals could possibly afford it—but in fact the whole system might be so prohibitively > expensive that even they could not afford it. The question then becomes, is this really what medicine needs most at this time? > Would not the talent, not to mention the money and the resources it represents, be better spent on projects that attack more urgent and > more fundamental problems of health care? > But then, this alleged justification of speech-recognition "research" is merely a rationalization anyway. (I put the word > "research" in quotation marks because the work I am here discussing is mere tinkering. I have no objection to serious scientists > studying the psycho-physiology of human speech recognition.) If one asks such questions of the principal sponsor of this work, the > Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense, as was recently done at an open meeting, > the answer given is that the Navy hopes to control its ships, and the other services their weapons, by voice commands. This project then > represents, in the eyes of its chief sponsor, a long step toward a fully automated battlefield. I see no reason to advise my students to lend > their talents to that aim. > I have urged my students and colleagues to ask still another question about this project: Granted that a speech-recognition > machine is bound to be enormously expensive, and that only governments and possibly a very few very large corporations will > therefore be able to afford it, what will they use it for? What can it possibly be used for? There is no question in my mind that there is > no pressing human problem that will more easily be solved because such machines exist. But such listening machines, could they be > made, will make monitoring of voice communication very much easier than it now is. Perhaps the only reason that there is very little > government surveillance of telephone conversations in many countries of the world is that such surveillance takes so much > manpower. Each conversation on a tapped phone must eventually be listened to by a human agent. But speech-recognizing machines > could delete all "uninteresting" conversations and present transcripts of only the remaining ones to their masters. I do not for a moment > believe that we will achieve this capability within the future so clearly visible to Newell and Simon. But I do ask, why should a talented > computer technologist lend his support to such a project? As a citizen I ask, why should my government spend approximately 2.5 > million dollars a year (as it now does) on this project? > > https://archive.org/details/computerpowerhum0000weiz_v0i3/page/270 > > Un saluto, > Daniela > ________________________________________ > Da: nexa<nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di maurizio lana<maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it> > Inviato: giovedì 8 febbraio 2024 16:57 > A: NEXA ML > Oggetto: [nexa] sistemi di IA e scrittura > > mi sono imbattuto in questo libro: > Baron, Naomi S. Who wrote this? how AI and the lure of efficiency threaten human writing. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2023. > > nel capitolo finale l'autrice scrive: > Imagine a world where AI’s current writing challenges have been solved. Where large language models (or their successors) don’t churn out ugliness. Where using them is energy efficient. Where predictive texting, spellcheck, and grammar programs are infallible. Where AI can produce lengthy texts that are non-repetitive, stylistically interesting, factually accurate, and always on topic. Oh, and can generate text that’s indistinguishable from what you might have written. Where would this world leave us humans? > As we weigh options, keep in mind potential blowback of getting what we wish for. Cultural lore—be it of King Midas in Greek mythology, the recurrent “three wishes” stories across European tales, or W. W. Jacobs’s more modern “The Monkey’s Paw”—reminds us that attractive prospects may bear unforeseen consequences. > lo trovo interessante perché molta parte della riflessione critica sui sistemi di AI si appunta su singoli aspetti mal-funzionanti/dis-funzionanti. > mentre qui c'è una riflessione critica globale, 'a prescindere', che si esprime sui sistemi di IA ma che riguarda ogni ambito: è desiderabile/quali conseguenze ha, che in ogni campo ogni necessità sia risolta e ogni difficoltà operativa sia eliminata ? > "teletrasporto per tutti a costo zero" e via in cima al monte Bianco con un tasto (in questo esempio si vede che sono proprio uno al pie' dei monti - piemontese): che cosa mi significherebbe? > > Maurizio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ la montagna è la prima che insegna a durare antonia pozzi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

1 0