- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

EU updates product liability regime to include software, Artificial Intelligence
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 14, 2023

Dec. 14, 2023

EU updates product liability regime to include software, Artificial Intelligence By Luca Bertuzzi | EU policymakers reached a political agreement on Thursday (14 December) on legislation to bring the bloc’s product liability regime in line with technological developments, notably covering digital products like software, which includes Artificial Intelligence. The Product Liability Directive (PLD) provides people who have suffered material damage from a defective product with the legal basis to sue the relevant economic operators and seek compensation. The product manufacturers will be liable for defectiveness resulting from a component under its control, which might be tangible, intangible, or a related service, like the traffic data of a navigation system. Defectiveness A product is deemed defective when it does not provide the safety a person is entitled to expect based on the reasonable foreseeable use, legal requirements, and the specific needs of the group of users for whom the product is intended. One of the elements considered when assessing defectiveness is the capacity of the product to continue to learn and acquire new features or knowledge; wording meant to cover Artificial Intelligence technology based on machine learning techniques. Damages Under the PLD, material damage includes death, personal injury, psychological harm, and destruction of property. At the same time, national liability regimes might still regulate compensation for non-material damages, such as those resulting from discrimination. The concept of damage also includes the loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes. The European Parliament suggested introducing a threshold for the value of the data to qualify as a material loss, but this idea was rejected in the talks with the Council. Disclosure of evidence The PLD introduces the possibility for claimants who have presented sufficient evidence to request that a national court mandates the defendant disclose the evidence at its disposal as long as necessary and proportionate. Conversely, the Parliament proposed allowing the defendant to ask for the disclosure of evidence at the disposal of the claimant under the same conditions. The disclosing party might request the national court to take the necessary measures to protect the confidentiality of disclosed information including trade secrets. Burden of proof Claimants must prove the product’s defectiveness, the damage suffered, and the causal link between the two. However, under certain conditions, the defectiveness of the product will be assumed, and it will be on the defendant to disprove it. The conditions include cases where the defendant fails to disclose relevant evidence, the claimant demonstrates that the product does not comply with mandatory product safety requirements, or an obvious malfunction causes the damage. The defectiveness is also presumed in cases where the claimant faces excessive difficulties due to technical or scientific complexity to prove the defectiveness of the product or the causal link, or the claimant proves that it is likely that the product is defective or that there is a causal link. Open source software The Directive will not apply to free and open-source software developed or supplied outside a commercial activity. The liability rules apply when the software is supplied in exchange for a price or personal data used for anything other than improving the software’s security or compatibility. Compensation fund The European Parliament included the possibility of EU countries using existing or new national sectorial compensation schemes for victims of defective products who fail to obtain compensation because the economic operator is insolvent or no longer exists. The text specifies that the member states should preferably avoid funding the schemes with public money. Liability exemption The Parliament pushed a liability exemption for manufacturers of software components to a defective product that were micro or small enterprises when they placed that software in the market, provided that another economic operator is liable. However, this measure was left for contractual arrangements between the small company and the other party. Right of recourse Parliamentarians included the principle that whenever more than one economic operator is deemed liable for the same damage and is ordered to pay compensation, each one will have the right of recourse against the others. Risk development The Council added the possibility for EU countries to maintain existing measures in their legal systems that make economic operators liable even if they can prove that they could not know the product’s defectiveness based on the state of scientific and technical knowledge. Limitation periods Claimants will have three years to initiate proceedings following the damage. The right for an injured person to seek compensation under this directive expires after ten years, except for latent injuries that are slow to manifest, for which the timeframe is 25 years. Timeline The PLD will apply to all products placed on the EU market 24 months after it enters into force. EU countries will have until then to transpose the directive into national law. [Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic] L'articolo è in questo luogo occhiuto: https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-updates-product-liability-…

1 0

Dropbox spooks users by sending data to OpenAI for AI search features
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

Dropbox spooks users by sending data to OpenAI for AI search features Feature turned on by default bothers users who like to keep their files private On Wednesday, news quickly spread on social media about a new enabled-by-default Dropbox setting that shares your Dropbox data with OpenAI for an experimental AI-powered search feature. Dropbox says that user data shared with third-party AI partners isn't used to train AI models and is deleted within 30 days. Even with assurances of data privacy laid out by Dropbox on an AI privacy FAQ page, the discovery that the setting had been enabled by default upset some Dropbox users. The setting was first noticed by writer Winifred Burton, who shared information about the Third-party AI setting through Bluesky on Tuesday, and frequent AI critic Karla Ortiz shared more information about it on X. Ortiz expressed worries that the data might be trained secretly without consent. In its FAQ, Dropbox contradicts this claim, saying, "We won’t let our third-party partners train their models on our user data without consent." Either way, communication about the change could have been clearer. AI researcher Simon Willison wrote, "Great example here of how careful companies need to be in clearly communicating what's going on with AI access to personal data." So why would Dropbox send user files to OpenAI anyway? In July, the company announced an AI-powered feature called Dash that allows AI models to perform universal searches across platforms like Google Workspace and Microsoft Outlook. According to the Dropbox privacy FAQ, the third-party AI opt-out setting is part of the "Dropbox AI alpha," which is a conversational interface for exploring file contents that involves chatting with a ChatGPT-style bot using an "Ask something about this file" feature. To make it work, an AI language model similar to the one that powers ChatGPT (like GPT-4) needs access to your files. According to the FAQ, the third-party AI toggle in your account settings is turned on by default if "you or your team" are participating in the Dropbox AI alpha. Still, multiple Ars Technica staff who had no knowledge of the Dropbox AI alpha found the setting enabled by default when they checked. Right now, the only third-party AI provider for Dropbox is OpenAI, writes Dropbox in the FAQ. "Open AI is an artificial intelligence research organization that develops cutting-edge language models and advanced AI technologies. Your data is never used to train their internal models, and is deleted from OpenAI’s servers within 30 days." It also says, "Only the content relevant to an explicit request or command is sent to our third-party AI partners to generate an answer, summary, or transcript." Disabling the feature is easy if you prefer not to share Dropbox data with OpenAI. Log into your Dropbox account on a desktop web browser, then click your profile photo > Settings > Third-party AI. This link may take you to that page more quickly. On that page, click the switch beside "Use artificial intelligence (AI) from third-party partners so you can work faster in Dropbox" to toggle it into the "Off" position. We reached out to Dropbox for comment, but it did not respond before this story was published. We will update this piece when we hear back from the company. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/dropbox-spooks-users…

1 0

Twenge, "Yes, it’s the phones (and social media)"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

*Yes, it’s the phones (and social media) */How every other explanation – from lack of independence to academic pressure to the pandemic – falls short/ * *Jean M. Twenge Oct 18, 2023 * */https://jeanmtwenge.substack.com/p/yes-its-the-phones-and-social-media /* ------ Here are 13 Other Explanations For The Adolescent Mental Health Crisis. None of Them Work. */Only smartphones plus social media can explain the international collapse in the early 2010s. / Jean M. Twenge Oct 24, 2023 https://www.afterbabel.com/p/13-explanations-mental-health-crisis

3 2

Re: [nexa] AI systems? unlawful by default
by maurizio lana Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

Il 13/12/23 14:05, Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> ha scritto: > /This paper proposes a system of “unlawfulness by default” for AI systems, an ex-ante model where some AI developers have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their technology is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, and not illegitimate in its legal bases and purposes/ > > https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/2022/06/01/brussels-privacy-hub-working-pape… > > Con un grazie a Daniela Tafani che me l'ha fatto scoprire in una sua recente presentazione questo paper del maggio 2022 è probabilmente una prima fase di riflessioni che hanno poi dato luogo a Malgieri, Gianclaudio, e Frank Pasquale. «Licensing High-Risk Artificial Intelligence: Toward Ex Ante Justification for a Disruptive Technology». /Computer Law & Security Review/ 52 (aprile 2024): 105899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105899. anche questo, se non ricordo male, segnalato qui in lista da Daniela Tafani Maurizio PS: non è pignoleria documentale, ma il senso di ricostruire i percorsi degli sviluppi di pensiero, per sottrarsi almeno un po' all'inevitabile sensazione serendipica (almeno per me) che le cose interessanti si trovano qua e là basta che uno guardi con attenzione. che è pure vero, ma questo rende difficile cogliere delle linee di sviluppo > > Ciao, Enrico ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a questo punto devo fare una confessione: come il mio amico Erri De Luca, sono un europeista estremista. Questo significa che, per me, l’Europa unita è l’unica utopia politica ragionevole che noi europei abbiamo coniato. xavier cercas, inaugurazione del salone del libro, torino 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

2 1

AI systems? unlawful by default
by Enrico Nardelli Dec. 13, 2023

Dec. 13, 2023

/This paper proposes a system of “unlawfulness by default” for AI systems, an ex-ante model where some AI developers have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their technology is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, and not illegitimate in its legal bases and purposes/ https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/2022/06/01/brussels-privacy-hub-working-pape… Con un grazie a Daniela Tafani che me l'ha fatto scoprire in una sua recente presentazione Ciao, Enrico -- -- EN https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html ====================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Presidente di "Informatics Europe" Direttore del Laboratorio Nazionale "Informatica e Scuola" del CINI Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma home page: https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: https://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it online meeting: https://blue.meet.garr.it/b/enr-y7f-t0q-ont ====================================================== --

1 0

Google’s Epic Legal Defeat Threatens $200 Billion App Store Industry
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 12, 2023

Dec. 12, 2023

Google’s legal defeat at the hands of Fortnite maker Epic Games Inc. threatens to roil an app store duopoly with Apple Inc. that generates close to $200 billion a year and dictates how billions of consumers use mobile devices. The loss — handed down by a San Francisco jury on Monday — is a blow to the two companies’ business model in apps, where they charge commissions of as much as 30% to software developers who typically have few other options. Google shares were down less than 1% in New York Tuesday morning at $132.62. Epic has spent years railing against the practice and got a federal jury to agree that Alphabet Inc.’s Google unit had acted unfairly as a monopoly. The case is likely to accelerate the weakening of app store rules, which have already come under fire from regulators and lawmakers around the world. “The dominoes are going to start falling here,” Tim Sweeney, chief executive officer of Epic, said in an interview after the verdict. “The end of 30% is in sight.” Though Apple won a similar case against Epic in 2021, that ruling was made by a single judge. The nature of the Google suit — where a jury sided unanimously with Epic — let actual consumers weigh in on the world of smartphone apps. In under four hours of deliberations, they found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive conduct, harmed Epic and illegally forced its own billing system on developers. There were other significant differences between the Apple and Google trials. During the current case, Epic highlighted agreements Google reached with top game developers, including Activision Blizzard Inc. and Nintendo Co., for smaller fees. “Revenue sharing deals among Google, smartphone makers and game developers came to light during the trial,” Justin Patterson and other analysts at KeyBanc Capital Markets wrote in a note to clients. “We believe this was a key difference between the cases that contributed to Apple’s victory and Google’s loss.” In Apple’s App Store, the same 30% take rate was applied evenly, while Google was attempting to steer traffic away from rival app stores on Android, analysts at Jefferies wrote in a note. “Meanwhile, Apple simply does not allow any rival app stores whatsoever.” The battle began in 2020, when Fortnite was kicked off the Apple and Google Play app stores because the game developer installed its own payment system. The idea was to bypass the up-to-30% revenue share that the two tech giants take from in-app purchases and subscriptions on their platforms. In response, Epic sued both companies. Google also has drawn criticism for making side deals with big developers like Spotify Technology SA where it offers lower commissions. In Monday’s decision, the jury found that Google shouldn’t require Android app developers to use its billing system for software sold through its store — and that it shouldn’t offer custom agreements to certain developers. “The immediate aftereffect is we will see a shift in the marketplace where big tech companies will have to make accommodations — whether it is more access, better terms, more options for developers — to stave off legal exposure,” said Paul Swanson, a partner at Holland & Hart who specializes in technology and antitrust law. Continua qui: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-12/google-s-epic-legal-defe…

1 0

MEMENTO | 167° Mercoledì di Nexa | 13 dicembre 2023, ore 17.00
by Valeria Bergantino Dec. 11, 2023

Dec. 11, 2023

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì 13 dicembre*, alle ore 17.00, si terrà il *167° Mercoledì di Nexa* con un incontro dal titolo /*"Internet fatta a pezzi. Sovranità digitale, nazionalismi e big tech"*/. Ospiti dell'incontro: *Vittorio Bertola* (Open-Xchange) e *Stefano Quintarelli *(UN/CEFACT)/*.*/ _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-167 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

ChatGPT entusiasta dell'AI Act
by Guido Vetere Dec. 10, 2023

Dec. 10, 2023

GPT: The European Parliament and the Council have recently reached a provisional agreement on the Artificial Intelligence Act, a significant regulatory framework for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the European Union. The agreement aims to ensure that AI systems in the EU are safe and respect fundamental rights, while also fostering innovation and positioning Europe as a leader in the field. Key aspects of the Act include safeguards on general purpose AI, limitations on the use of biometric identification systems by law enforcement, bans on social scoring and AI used to manipulate or exploit vulnerabilities, and rights for consumers to lodge complaints and receive explanations. Specifically, the Act prohibits certain applications of AI that pose a threat to citizens' rights and democracy. These include biometric categorisation systems using sensitive characteristics, untargeted scraping of facial images, emotion recognition in workplaces and educational institutions, social scoring based on social behaviour, and AI systems that manipulate human behaviour or exploit vulnerabilities. For high-risk AI systems, the Act establishes clear obligations, including a mandatory fundamental rights impact assessment. This applies also to the insurance and banking sectors, and AI systems used in influencing elections and voter behaviour are classified as high-risk. The Act also sets out obligations for high-impact general-purpose AI systems, which include risk assessments, adversarial testing, incident reports, and transparency requirements. In terms of enforcement, non-compliance with the rules can result in fines ranging from 35 million euros or 7% of global turnover to 7.5 million euros or 1.5% of turnover, depending on the infringement and the size of the company. The agreed text will now need formal adoption by both the Parliament and Council to become EU law, with the Parliament’s Internal Market and Civil Liberties committees set to vote on the agreement in an upcoming meeting. The legislation is not expected to take effect until at least 2025. For more detailed information, you can refer to the articles from the European Parliament's news page [here](6) and from BNN [here](7). Me: yes, but consider the following passage: For high-impact GPAI models with systemic risk, Parliament negotiators managed to secure more stringent obligations. If these models meet certain criteria they will have to conduct model evaluations, assess and mitigate systemic risks, conduct adversarial testing, report to the Commission on serious incidents, ensure cybersecurity and report on their energy efficiency. MEPs also insisted that, until harmonised EU standards are published, GPAIs with systemic risk may rely on codes of practice to comply with the regulation. What 'codes of practice' means, in practice? Him: In the context of the European AI Act, "codes of practice" refer to a set of guidelines or standards that organizations can follow to ensure compliance with the regulation, particularly for general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems that pose systemic risks. These codes are intended to provide practical guidance on how to meet the Act's requirements, such as conducting model evaluations, assessing and mitigating systemic risks, performing adversarial testing, ensuring cybersecurity, and reporting on energy efficiency. Until harmonized EU standards are established, these codes of practice offer a framework for organizations to align their AI systems with the Act's objectives and principles. For more detailed information, you can refer to the European Parliament's website: [Artificial Intelligence Act: deal on comprehensive rules for trustworthy AI]( https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IPR15699/artifici… ). Me: Please help me understand. What 'regulatory sandbox' could mean in the following passage? MEPs wanted to ensure that businesses, especially SMEs, can develop AI solutions without undue pressure from industry giants controlling the value chain. To this end, the agreement promotes so-called regulatory sandboxes and real-world-testing, established by national authorities to develop and train innovative AI before placement on the market Him: A "regulatory sandbox" in this context refers to a controlled environment where businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), can develop and test innovative AI solutions under relaxed regulatory conditions. This setup allows for real-world testing and development without the full burden of compliance with extensive regulations that might normally apply. These sandboxes are established by national authorities to encourage innovation in AI while ensuring safety and compliance standards are met before these AI solutions are introduced to the broader market. For more detailed information, you can refer to the European Parliament's website: [Artificial Intelligence Act: deal on comprehensive rules for trustworthy AI]( https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IPR15699/artifici… ) Me: Suppose I'm a SME and I'm in the process of developing an AI solution based on LLM. Why should I care about a “regulatory sandbox”? Him: As an SME developing an AI solution based on Large Language Models (LLM), a regulatory sandbox offers significant advantages. It allows you to test and refine your AI product in a real-world environment with reduced regulatory constraints. This means you can innovate and experiment more freely, accelerating development while ensuring compliance with essential safety and ethical standards. Essentially, a regulatory sandbox provides a safer, more flexible space for you to bring your AI innovations to market more efficiently and effectively. For more details, visit the European Parliament's website: [Artificial Intelligence Act: deal on comprehensive rules for trustworthy AI]( https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IPR15699/artifici… ). Tutto a posto, buona domenica! Guido

1 0

Intelligenza artificiale: trovato accordo - via alla regolamentazione
by Mauro Alovisio Dec. 9, 2023

Dec. 9, 2023

Ciao segnalo news di interesse https://www.ilpost.it/2023/12/09/ai-act-intelligenza-artificiale-unione-eur… https://www.consilium.europa.eu/it/press/press-releases/2023/12/09/artifici… Buon sabato Mauro Alovisio

1 0

Attivissimo: Il video dimostrativo di Google Gemini è un falso
by Alberto Cammozzo Dec. 9, 2023

Dec. 9, 2023

<https://attivissimo.blogspot.com/2023/12/il-video-dimostrativo-di-google-ge…> Questo video promozionale di Google per presentare la propria nuova intelligenza artificiale, denominata /Gemini/, è un falso: Gemini non è affatto in grado di fare le cose mostrate qui. <https://www.youtube.com/embed/UIZAiXYceBI> Lo spiega in dettaglio Matteo Flora in questo video, supportato dalle dichiarazioni <https://developers.googleblog.com/2023/12/how-its-made-gemini-multimodal-pr…> fatte da Google stessa nei propri blog. <https://www.youtube.com/embed/rI0X6be5zC4> Specialmente per i chatbot, questa faccenda dell’IA comincia a puzzare sempre più di speculazione. /Fonti aggiuntive: Ars Technica <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/google-admits-it-fud…>, <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/google-admits-it-fud…> Gizmodo <https://gizmodo.com/google-gemini-ai-hands-on-demo-1851084170>. <https://gizmodo.com/google-gemini-ai-hands-on-demo-1851084170> /

2 1