- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: Usa: gruppo italiano Autistici/Inventati designato terrorista

by valerio

Il 26/08/26 20:24, Giacomo Tesio via nexa ha scritto: > https://www.agi.it/agiprima/usa-gruppo-italiano-autisticiinventati-designat… > > Il dipartimento di Stato americano ha designato il collettivo > italiano Autistici/Inventati (A/I) come "terrorista globale > appositamente designato" (Sdgt), accusandolo di fornire > infrastrutture digitali a cellule Antifa violente e ad altri > gruppi dell'estrema sinistra radicale in vari Paesi. > > La designazione, adottata in base all'ordine esecutivo 13224, > comporta il congelamento di tutti i beni del collettivo soggetti > alla giurisdizione americana e il divieto per cittadini e soggetti > statunitensi di effettuare transazioni con l'entità designata. > Anche istituzioni finanziarie straniere potrebbero esporsi > a sanzioni secondarie. > Secondo Washington, A/I, gruppo basato in Italia, gestisce > strumenti di comunicazione cifrata, servizi email e di > hosting, videoconferenze e sistemi di anonimizzazione riservati > a soggetti sottoposti a una verifica ideologica. > Tali servizi sarebbero usati, afferma il governo americano, > per organizzare, reclutare, diffondere propaganda, > condividere informazioni su obiettivi e tattiche e > rivendicare attacchi, mantenendo anonimi gli utilizzatori. > > Il dipartimento di Stato sostiene che il collettivo gestisca > circa 16 mila caselle email, 1.500 siti web, 5.500 mailing list > e 10 mila blog. > Le autorità americane gli attribuiscono un ruolo centrale > in una campagna transnazionale di reti dell'estrema sinistra > violenta, attiva negli Stati Uniti, in Europa e nel > continente americano. > > Washington afferma che infrastrutture riconducibili ad A/I > sarebbero state utilizzate da cellule anarchiche responsabili > di sabotaggi alle ferrovie in Francia, Italia, Germania e Paesi Bassi > nel 2026, nonché per rivendicare il sabotaggio dell'oleodotto > Transalpino (Tal) del marzo scorso. Il gruppo viene inoltre > accusato di aver ospitato comunicati e manuali attribuiti > a reti dell'estrema sinistra attive contro infrastrutture > energetiche e ferroviarie in Germania. bene, siamo tutti terroristi, ma non facciamo guerre in tutto il mondo come fa il loro presidente... valerio viva l'anarchia > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list -- nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > To change settings or unsubscribe please go to: https://server-nexa.polito.it/postorius/lists/nexa.server-nexa.polito.it/ > The general archive of the list is located at: https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/ > Permalink to this message: https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/me…

Aug. 26, 2026

Usa: gruppo italiano Autistici/Inventati designato terrorista

by Giacomo Tesio

https://www.agi.it/agiprima/usa-gruppo-italiano-autisticiinventati-designat… Il dipartimento di Stato americano ha designato il collettivo italiano Autistici/Inventati (A/I) come "terrorista globale appositamente designato" (Sdgt), accusandolo di fornire infrastrutture digitali a cellule Antifa violente e ad altri gruppi dell'estrema sinistra radicale in vari Paesi. La designazione, adottata in base all'ordine esecutivo 13224, comporta il congelamento di tutti i beni del collettivo soggetti alla giurisdizione americana e il divieto per cittadini e soggetti statunitensi di effettuare transazioni con l'entità designata. Anche istituzioni finanziarie straniere potrebbero esporsi a sanzioni secondarie. Secondo Washington, A/I, gruppo basato in Italia, gestisce strumenti di comunicazione cifrata, servizi email e di hosting, videoconferenze e sistemi di anonimizzazione riservati a soggetti sottoposti a una verifica ideologica. Tali servizi sarebbero usati, afferma il governo americano, per organizzare, reclutare, diffondere propaganda, condividere informazioni su obiettivi e tattiche e rivendicare attacchi, mantenendo anonimi gli utilizzatori. Il dipartimento di Stato sostiene che il collettivo gestisca circa 16 mila caselle email, 1.500 siti web, 5.500 mailing list e 10 mila blog. Le autorità americane gli attribuiscono un ruolo centrale in una campagna transnazionale di reti dell'estrema sinistra violenta, attiva negli Stati Uniti, in Europa e nel continente americano. Washington afferma che infrastrutture riconducibili ad A/I sarebbero state utilizzate da cellule anarchiche responsabili di sabotaggi alle ferrovie in Francia, Italia, Germania e Paesi Bassi nel 2026, nonché per rivendicare il sabotaggio dell'oleodotto Transalpino (Tal) del marzo scorso. Il gruppo viene inoltre accusato di aver ospitato comunicati e manuali attribuiti a reti dell'estrema sinistra attive contro infrastrutture energetiche e ferroviarie in Germania.

Aug. 26, 2026

« Les modérateurs des plateformes peuvent mieux protéger les utilisateurs que les contrôles d’identité numérique »

by Juan Carlos De Martin

« Les modérateurs des plateformes peuvent mieux protéger les utilisateurs que les contrôles d’identité numérique » Thomas Le Bonniec <https://www.nouvelobs.com/journalistes/2219/thomas-le-bonniec.html> et Neil Seghier <https://www.nouvelobs.com/journalistes/3580/neil-seghier.html> Publié le 21 août 2026 à 18h38 , mis à jour le 22 août 2026 à 12h50 https://www.nouvelobs.com/opinions/20260821.OBS117562/les-moderateurs-des-p… Même censurée par le Conseil constitutionnel, une loi interdisant les réseaux sociaux aux moins de 15 ans reste une priorité pour Emmanuel Macron. Pour Thomas Le Bonniec et Neil Seghier, les mesures prévues ne s’attaquent pas du tout à la racine du problème. Car ce n’est pas l’accès aux plateformes qui pose problème, mais bien leur conception. Le 18 février dernier, dans la salle d’un tribunal californien, M. Mark Zuckerberg, PDG de Meta, faisait une déposition dans laquelle il défendait l’idée d’un contrôle d’identité à la source, depuis les systèmes opérateurs des téléphones portables. Tenant de cette ligne depuis longtemps, M. Zuckerberg devait se défendre dans le cadre d’un procès où la plaignante l’accusait d’avoir conçu ses plateformes de manière à rendre les usagers dépendants. Utilisatrice d’Instagram depuis l’âge de 9 ans, KGM, qui en a aujourd’hui 20, aurait donc vu s’aggraver sa dépression et empirer sa santé mentale. On le sait depuis les révélations d’Edward Snowden en 2011, Facebook a été conçu comme un outil de surveillance. Que les projets d’interdiction des réseaux sociaux aux mineurs se multiplient dans le monde et rejoignent les propositions des grandes plateformes n’est pas une coïncidence. L’ingénieur et ex-employé de Meta Arturo Béjar (AP news, 19 août 2026)<https://apnews.com/article/meta-trial-teens-instagram-bejar-oakland-858e260…>accuse la firme d’avoir privilégié les profits à la sécurité des usagers, adoptant une approche « don’t ask, don’t tell » en ce qui concerne les torts causés aux adolescents utilisant Facebook et Instagram. M. Béjar conclut <https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-child-safety-…> : « On ne peut tout simplement pas faire confiance à Mark Zuckerberg avec les enfants. » La vérification de l’identité, une stratégie d’obfuscation Le lobbying constant de l’entreprise pour faire adopter des lois instaurant une vérification de l’identité des usagers est donc la poursuite d’une stratégie cohérente d’obfuscation, qui permet d’éviter les questions sur les choix réalisés en interne. Par conséquent, l’instauration d’un contrôle d’identité numérique, tel que celui voté par l’Assemblée nationale, pour accéder aux réseaux sociaux, ne s’attaque pas aux racines du problème, tout en posant un problème de libertés fondamentales. La juriste Brunessen Bertrand expliquait dans les colonnes du « Monde » le 29 juillet que « la loi adoptée […] ne peut protéger les données de quelques-uns qu’en organisant la collecte de l’âge, sinon de l’identité, de tous les autres ». C’est précisément l’un des arguments<https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2026/2026911DC.htm> du Conseil constitutionnel, qui a censuré cette disposition en considérant qu’il s’agit d’une atteinte disproportionnée à la vie privée. En effet, la loi interdisant l’usage des réseaux sociaux pour les mineurs de moins de 15 ans renvoyait aux usagers une responsabilité qui incombe aux grandes plateformes et à l’Etat, sans pour autant protéger les usagers, mineurs ou non. Il est donc particulièrement inquiétant d’observer que l’instrumentalisation d’une cause louable, en l’occurrence la protection des enfants, fait perdre de vue à bien de fins esprits <https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2026/08/21/l-interdiction-d-acces-des-…> la protection des libertés fondamentales. Alors que faudrait-il faire pour prendre tout de même au sérieux la question de la santé mentale des usagers des réseaux sociaux – pas seulement des mineurs ? Les « nettoyeurs du web », en première ligne face aux contenus Peut-être pourrait-on commencer par reconnaître que les plateformes numériques sont conçues pour maximiser l’« engagement » de leurs utilisateurs, et de là, pour en extraire autant de données que possible – des données que la philosophe Shoshana Zuboff appelle un « surplus comportemental ». Pour s’assurer qu’elles restent accessibles et vivables, ces plateformes font donc appel à des « nettoyeurs du web », des annotateurs spécialisés : les modérateurs de contenus, très souvent employés par l’intermédiaire de sous-traitants. Meta est depuis longtemps en mesure d’inférer l’âge de ses utilisateurs, mais également de contrôler les accès aux mineurs. C’est ce que confirment les anciens modérateurs : Nicolas (le prénom a été changé), qui travaillait jusqu’en avril 2025 à la modération de Messenger à Barcelone, explique qu’une « IA » de Meta calculait « un âge approximatif »en fonction de l’activité de l’utilisateur sur le réseau, les likes d’un utilisateur par exemple. Il dit se souvenir d’utilisateurs qui déclaraient « avoir 13 ou 14 ans », mais qui selon « l’intelligence artificielle », en avaient plutôt 25 ou 30. Cette méthode permet au moins deux choses à la plateforme : un déni plausible si elle se fait accuser de ne pas vérifier les âges de ses utilisateurs d’une part, et le développement d’un énième outil de surveillance à moindre coût de l’autre. La cour de justice américaine, qui début août 2026, en plus d’imposer à Meta une amende de 942 millions de dollars, conclut que la plateforme doit « continuer d’améliorer ses outils de contrôle de l’âge au Nouveau-Mexique […] pour déterminer l’âge des personnes en fonction de signaux tels que leurs amis et le contenu qu’ils consomment » semble ne pas avoir été mise au courant de cette pratique (« The Guardian », 7 août 2026). A Barcelone, près de 2000 d’entre eux ont été licenciés en avril 2025. Si les progrès de l’intelligence artificielle sont régulièrement mis en avant pour justifier ces plans sociaux (« The Financial Times », juin 2026), force est de constater que leur licenciement est intervenu une semaine après une décision condamnant la sous-traitante pour discrimination salariale (« El Nacional », avril 2025). A Dublin, en mai dernier, Covalen a mis à la porte plus de 700 d’entre eux avec le même prétexte. Soumis à des clauses de confidentialité et à des conditions de travail déplorables, ils sont même contraints par certaines entreprises à renoncer à l’exercice de leurs droits fondamentaux. Comme l’a révélé le média irlandais « The Journal » en juillet 2026, TikTok a proposé à ses modérateurs de meilleures conditions de licenciement s’ils renonçaient à exercer leur droit d’accès à leurs propres données et à porter plainte auprès de la Cnil irlandaise – une pratique pourtant illégale. Si les législateurs souhaitaient prendre au sérieux la question de la protection des mineurs, ils devraient reconnaître que l’enjeu porte sur les algorithmes de modération des contenus et les conditions générales d’utilisation de la plateforme. Ce qui suppose de se porter son attention sur le travail des modérateurs en première ligne face aux contenus. Traiter les guides de modération comme des objets politiques Il existe un type de documentation interne à ces plateformes qui révèle clairement leur position. Il s’agit des guides de modération : modifiés en permanence, ceux-ci permettent d’expliquer pourquoi un contenu est modéré, mais également pourquoi cet exercice ne sera jamais entièrement automatisé. Deux priorités se dessinent. Premièrement, s’assurer que les modérateurs de contenus disposent de conditions de travail décentes en termes de revenus, mais aussi de prise en charge des risques psychosociaux très élevés. Deuxièmement, traiter les guides de modération comme des objets politiques. Les modérateurs les connaissent bien, et leurs témoignages contribuent fortement à comprendre certaines limites des plateformes : pourquoi des contenus de spams ou d’arnaques ne sont pas effacés, pourquoi des comptes qu’ils identifient comme appartenant à des prédateurs sexuels ne sont pas supprimés, pourquoi certains contenus, pourtant potentiellement dangereux, passent entre les mailles du filet. Ce sont donc ces guides, ainsi que les conditions générales d’utilisation, qui doivent faire l’objet d’un droit de regard par les usagers et par les modérateurs de contenus eux-mêmes ; car ce n’est pas l’accès à la plateforme qui pose problème, mais bien sa conception. Alors, la question de la santé mentale des jeunes sera traitée de manière convenable, c’est-à-dire, de même que les opérations de propagande politique et d’ingérence étrangère, comme un symptôme de cette architecture de la surveillance et de l’attention. ◗ Thomas Le Bonniec est doctorant en sociologie à l’Institut Polytechnique de Paris. Il s’intéresse à la relation entre le mode de production de l’intelligence artificielle et la régulation européenne sur la protection des données. En 2019, alors annotateur de données, il a lancé l’alerte sur les enregistrements réalisés par Apple via son assistant vocal, Siri. Suite à une plainte de la LDH, le parquet de Paris a annoncé s’être saisi de l’affaire en octobre 2025. ◗ Neil Seghier est doctorant en Etudes politiques à l’EHESS et enseignant à l’Institut des Mines-Télécom. Sa thèse porte sur les pratiques de modération de contenu et la régulation des plateformes en ligne. Depuis 2018, il suit les modérateurs de contenu de Meta de Barcelone, en procès actuellement pour dommages psychologiques, discrimination salariale et licenciement abusif.

Aug. 24, 2026

Re: The Generative AI Learning Penalty: Evidence from Chinese Secondary Education

by Francesco Maiorana

Grazie. Esistono studi simili in ambito universitario? Qualcuno ci sta lavorando? Si potrebbe organizzare una raccolta dati in tal senso in Italia sia per la scuola sia per l'università? Come docente sia di scuola superiore sia universitario di primo e secondo livello sia in Italia sia all'estero, sono anni che lancio appelli disperati in tal senso. Pochi, purtroppo scelgono "la via stretta" e preferiscono la via solo apparentemente più comoda dell'IA. Cordialmente, Francesco Maiorana On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 9:03 PM Enrico Nardelli via nexa < nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> wrote: > Grazie Giacomo, molto interessante. > > Per chi volesse leggere il lavoro una versione non pay-walled è > disponibile qua > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6868618 > > Ciao, Enrico > > > Il 22/08/2026 00:24, Giacomo Tesio via nexa ha scritto: > > Using 30 months of panel data on 26,811 Chinese students in grades > 7--12, we study how generative AI affects homework productivity and > learning. > The data combine monthly closed-book exams, high-school and college > entrance exams, and homework scores and completion time across nine > subjects. > We exploit staggered AI adoption in a difference-in-differences design. > > AI adoption raises homework scores by 18% and reduces completion time > by 30%, but lowers monthly exam scores by 20% within six months. > High-stakes entrance-exam scores fall by 18 and 24%, with the full > penalty emerging only after about two years. The losses are largest in > social science subjects, followed by STEM and languages, and are > especially large for junior students, high-achieving students, and > boys. The learning losses are concentrated among roughly 80% of AI > users whose behavior is consistent with homework outsourcing, as > indicated by exceptionally short homework completion time coupled with > high homework scores. AI users who maintain similar homework completion > time as non-AI users experience small learning losses. > https://cepr.org/publications/dp21577 > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list -- nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > To change settings or unsubscribe please go to: https://server-nexa.polito.it/postorius/lists/nexa.server-nexa.polito.it/ > The general archive of the list is located at: https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/ > Permalink to this message: https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/me… > > -- > > -- EN > https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html > =================================================== > Prof. Enrico Nardelli > Past President di "Informatics Europe" > Vicedirettore 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 > ====================================================================================================== > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list -- nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > To change settings or unsubscribe please go to: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/postorius/lists/nexa.server-nexa.polito.it/ > The general archive of the list is located at: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/ > Permalink to this message: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/me… -- Cordiali saluti/best regards, Francesco Maiorana

Aug. 23, 2026

Re: The Generative AI Learning Penalty: Evidence from Chinese Secondary Education

by Enrico Nardelli

Grazie Giacomo, molto interessante. Per chi volesse leggere il lavoro una versione non pay-walled è disponibile qua https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6868618 Ciao, Enrico Il 22/08/2026 00:24, Giacomo Tesio via nexa ha scritto: > Using 30 months of panel data on 26,811 Chinese students in grades > 7--12, we study how generative AI affects homework productivity and > learning. > The data combine monthly closed-book exams, high-school and college > entrance exams, and homework scores and completion time across nine > subjects. > We exploit staggered AI adoption in a difference-in-differences design. > > AI adoption raises homework scores by 18% and reduces completion time > by 30%, but lowers monthly exam scores by 20% within six months. > High-stakes entrance-exam scores fall by 18 and 24%, with the full > penalty emerging only after about two years. The losses are largest in > social science subjects, followed by STEM and languages, and are > especially large for junior students, high-achieving students, and > boys. The learning losses are concentrated among roughly 80% of AI > users whose behavior is consistent with homework outsourcing, as > indicated by exceptionally short homework completion time coupled with > high homework scores. AI users who maintain similar homework completion > time as non-AI users experience small learning losses. > > https://cepr.org/publications/dp21577 > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list --nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > To change settings or unsubscribe please go to:https://server-nexa.polito.it/postorius/lists/nexa.server-nexa.polito.it/ > The general archive of the list is located at:https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/ > Permalink to this message:https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/message/DMFFZ7UQCOVAJKHRBZP4FRSDMKB3CVAC/ -- -- EN https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html =================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Past President di "Informatics Europe" Vicedirettore 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 ====================================================================================================== --

Aug. 23, 2026

Re: Luigi Zingales a proposito di Dacemoglu e The Economist

by abregni

Avete presente -- i vecchietti... -- l'immagine di quel cane vicino a un grammofono con la scritta (marca di dischi, mi pare) "La Voce del Padrone"? Beh, quelle poche volte che ho letto l'Economist l'ho visto "dannatamente schierato a tappetino" verso il pensiero unico capitalistico-anglosassone... Che qualcuno me lo venga a segnalare 20-30 anni dopo, ...mi lascia freddo: l'hanno capito solo adesso? Il 2026-08-23 08:05 Juan Carlos De Martin via nexa ha scritto: > https://x.com/zingales/status/2091283802291089686?s=20 > > Everybody has heard of the Luddites, but few know Sir Thomas > Maitland, the man who defeated them. Rather than using brute force to > take them all out, Maitland simply identified the men he took to be > ringleaders, had them arrested on evidence that was often thin, and > executed them. Hit one, educate a hundred. > > This is the strategy that the British magazine The Economist seems to > have adopted toward the new version of the Luddites: AI critics. > Rather than the public execution, they use the public humiliation of > the anti-AI ringleaders, with equally scant evidence. Whatever its > editors intended, the critical piece against @DAcemogluMIT > , published by the magazine on August 17th, functions less like a > conventional assessment of scholarship than like an act of > intellectual discipline. > > I have long criticized important parts of Daron’s work, and I am > not afraid to expose weaknesses in his reasoning, as I have in the > latest episode of my Capitalisn’t podcast: > https://youtube.com/watch?v=rOnrvB > zJ5D4&t=432s > . But I would never have written that piece. > > If The Economist had objections to his Nobel Prize, it should have > raised them when it was awarded. But it did not. If it had objections > to his paper on demography, it should have raised them when the paper > came out. But it did not. > > Why does the British magazine raise these questions only now? Why > does it do a review of a book that is not about AI, but only reviews > the half-chapter he wrote about AI? I have read The Economist for more > than thirty years. I cannot remember it ever attacking a living > economist in this ad hominem way, let alone one of Daron's caliber. > > The piece is not really about Daron. It is a warning shot. If the > Economist can humiliate the leading economist of my generation, > imagine what it can do to anybody else who criticizes AI. Criticize > the new incarnation of the latest technological wonder, and your > weakest paper becomes your body of work. Praise it, and your weakest > paper is never mentioned at all or even celebrated like a great piece > of scholarship. > > If AI delivers even half of its promises, it will be transformative, > ushering in a new era of productivity and growth, as the first > industrial revolution was and possibly even more. Many professional > economists only see these long-run benefits. Yet, the path to Nirvana > is littered with the bodies of the people hurt during the transition. > It took between 50 and 70 years after the start of the First > Industrial Revolution for workers' wages to begin rising. In the > meantime, life expectancy stagnated, and average height declined, a > clear sign that the Dickensian stories of squalor and misery were not > the product of their author’s imagination but a real account of what > the country went through. > > Criticizing AI is not necessarily resisting progress; it is pointing > out the costs it entails. Unlike 19th-century Great Britain, today, > the democratic West is not forced to maximize the speed of innovation > at all costs. We need a serious public debate on the costs and > benefits of acceleration, with concrete proposals for minimizing > transition costs. This debate needs critical voices like Daron’s. > > In the undemocratic Great Britain of the early 19th century, Lord > Maitland was not serving the British people, but the British merchant > elite, who had only to gain by putting the innovation pedal to the > metal, since the costs were borne by others. In the interest of whom > is The Economist publicly humiliating Daron? > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list -- nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > To change settings or unsubscribe please go to: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/postorius/lists/nexa.server-nexa.polito.it/ > The general archive of the list is located at: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/ > Permalink to this message: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/me…

Aug. 23, 2026

Luigi Zingales a proposito di Dacemoglu e The Economist

by Juan Carlos De Martin

https://x.com/zingales/status/2091283802291089686?s=20 Everybody has heard of the Luddites, but few know Sir Thomas Maitland, the man who defeated them. Rather than using brute force to take them all out, Maitland simply identified the men he took to be ringleaders, had them arrested on evidence that was often thin, and executed them. Hit one, educate a hundred. This is the strategy that the British magazine The Economist seems to have adopted toward the new version of the Luddites: AI critics. Rather than the public execution, they use the public humiliation of the anti-AI ringleaders, with equally scant evidence. Whatever its editors intended, the critical piece against @DAcemogluMIT , published by the magazine on August 17th, functions less like a conventional assessment of scholarship than like an act of intellectual discipline. I have long criticized important parts of Daron’s work, and I am not afraid to expose weaknesses in his reasoning, as I have in the latest episode of my Capitalisn’t podcast: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rOnrvB zJ5D4&t=432s . But I would never have written that piece. If The Economist had objections to his Nobel Prize, it should have raised them when it was awarded. But it did not. If it had objections to his paper on demography, it should have raised them when the paper came out. But it did not. Why does the British magazine raise these questions only now? Why does it do a review of a book that is not about AI, but only reviews the half-chapter he wrote about AI? I have read The Economist for more than thirty years. I cannot remember it ever attacking a living economist in this ad hominem way, let alone one of Daron's caliber. The piece is not really about Daron. It is a warning shot. If the Economist can humiliate the leading economist of my generation, imagine what it can do to anybody else who criticizes AI. Criticize the new incarnation of the latest technological wonder, and your weakest paper becomes your body of work. Praise it, and your weakest paper is never mentioned at all or even celebrated like a great piece of scholarship. If AI delivers even half of its promises, it will be transformative, ushering in a new era of productivity and growth, as the first industrial revolution was and possibly even more. Many professional economists only see these long-run benefits. Yet, the path to Nirvana is littered with the bodies of the people hurt during the transition. It took between 50 and 70 years after the start of the First Industrial Revolution for workers' wages to begin rising. In the meantime, life expectancy stagnated, and average height declined, a clear sign that the Dickensian stories of squalor and misery were not the product of their author’s imagination but a real account of what the country went through. Criticizing AI is not necessarily resisting progress; it is pointing out the costs it entails. Unlike 19th-century Great Britain, today, the democratic West is not forced to maximize the speed of innovation at all costs. We need a serious public debate on the costs and benefits of acceleration, with concrete proposals for minimizing transition costs. This debate needs critical voices like Daron’s. In the undemocratic Great Britain of the early 19th century, Lord Maitland was not serving the British people, but the British merchant elite, who had only to gain by putting the innovation pedal to the metal, since the costs were borne by others. In the interest of whom is The Economist publicly humiliating Daron?

Aug. 23, 2026

The Generative AI Learning Penalty: Evidence from Chinese Secondary Education

by Giacomo Tesio

Using 30 months of panel data on 26,811 Chinese students in grades 7--12, we study how generative AI affects homework productivity and learning. The data combine monthly closed-book exams, high-school and college entrance exams, and homework scores and completion time across nine subjects. We exploit staggered AI adoption in a difference-in-differences design. AI adoption raises homework scores by 18% and reduces completion time by 30%, but lowers monthly exam scores by 20% within six months. High-stakes entrance-exam scores fall by 18 and 24%, with the full penalty emerging only after about two years. The losses are largest in social science subjects, followed by STEM and languages, and are especially large for junior students, high-achieving students, and boys. The learning losses are concentrated among roughly 80% of AI users whose behavior is consistent with homework outsourcing, as indicated by exceptionally short homework completion time coupled with high homework scores. AI users who maintain similar homework completion time as non-AI users experience small learning losses. https://cepr.org/publications/dp21577

Aug. 21, 2026

Re: Articolato ed interessante

by Davide Dubini

Buonasera, ho trovato la lettura molto interessante. Per quanto comprendo, essa richiama il tema dei rischi della IA in rapporto a quello della necessità di conservazione/ricostruzione d'una società in grado di governarla e, eventualmente, in una fase più avanzata, di resisterle. Un progressivo e sempre più diffuso impoverimento culturale congiunto alla perdita di valori riconducibili all'idea di comunità (mi piace richiamare Adriano Olivetti) ci espone, in tal senso, a rischi enormi. Un tentativo di controllo e la limitazione degli strumenti di IA, penso, debba passare necessariamente dal tentativo di rinforzare le 'difese culturali personali' e quelle collettive. Credo che le modalità di attuazione di tali obiettivi possano essere davvero molte e non possano essere demandate unicamente alle istituzioni ma rientrino nelle responsabilità personali e in quelle di ogni organismo ancora proiettato a livello sociale, anche attraverso forme di volontariato, perché no? Ho letto, qui, di persone che - ritengo in modo encomiabile - hanno organizzato e gestiscono a livello associativo corsi che illustrano le modalità di funzionamento della IA, i suoi rischi ecc. Temo, però, che sia necessario ritornare ancora più indietro e tentare di recuperare facoltà mentali compromesse di molti. E tra questi ultimi, ovviamente, mi ci metto anch'io che ricorro spesso al chatbot e dimentico i processi di analisi critica che mi hanno permesso, per molti anni e con molta fatica, di risolvere problemi e trovare soluzioni. Sarò forse banale ma per difenderci credo si debba continuare - o reimparare - a pensare in autonomia attingendo alle nostre conoscenze culturali basilari, anche quelle ataviche, così preziose, ai nostri bagagli esperienziali e alla storia, che tutto insegna ma che pochi ricordano. Riscoprire quanto già esiste combatte l'atrofia cerebrale particolarmente insidiosa che facilmente si sviluppa attraverso le moderne dipendenze di cui si tratta. Certo non attribuisco una mera connotazione negativa alle dinamiche che caratterizzano la IA ma, penso, occorra agire in una dimensione culturale collettiva, nell'interesse dei più e dei più deboli ed indifesi. Il maestro Manzi diceva: 'Non è mai troppo tardi' ma non sarei ottimista fino a quel punto ... Come avrete facilmente intuito, non sono un accademico né uno specialista del settore. Sono una persona, come tante, sinceramente interessata all'argomento. Ringrazio, dunque, per la pazienza con cui avrete letto. Un saluto a tutti Davide Dubini Il gio 20 ago 2026, 08:30 don Luca Peyron via nexa < nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > Buona lettura > > Dl > > > > https://michelekettmaier.nova100.ilsole24ore.com/2026/08/19/estinzioni-sei-… > _________________________ > don Luca Peyron > Pastorale della Cultura tecno scientifica - Apostolato Digitale > Arcidiocesi di Torino > apostolatodigitale.it <https://www.apostolatodigitale.it/> > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list -- nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > To change settings or unsubscribe please go to: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/postorius/lists/nexa.server-nexa.polito.it/ > The general archive of the list is located at: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/ > Permalink to this message: > https://server-nexa.polito.it/hyperkitty/list/nexa@server-nexa.polito.it/me…

Aug. 20, 2026

Re: Articolato ed interessante

by maurizio lana

grazie, lettura interessante, perché sollecita a pensare (e alla necessità di decidere a tutti i livelli intermedi) sulla datification, e che essa sposta il potere da chi ha e fa "la cosa" a chi ha e gestisce i dati. c'entra l'IA ma alla base c'è quel claim della "società dell'informazione" con cui pensiamo di dire che siamo 'più avanti' ma già una società di cacciatori/raccolgitori viveva di informazione oggi tra noi rimangono cacciatori/raccoglitori i San, già noti come Boscimani, Louis Liebenberg, /The art of tracking: the origin of science/ (D. Philip, 1990), https://cybertracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Liebenberg-1990-The-Art…; ---, /The Origin of Science: On the Evolutionary Roots of Science and Its Implications for Self-Education and Citizen Science/, Second edition (CyberTracker, 2021), https://cybertracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Liebenberg-2013-The-Ori….) solo che qui da noi, ora, l'informazione è digitale e la usiamo ma non la possediamo (detto un po' alle spicce: via la connessione internet e l'informazione digitale è persa). e non è un grande avanzamento. > La questione da riaprire non è dunque la distribuzione del reddito ma > la distribuzione del potere, e sono domande molto concrete: chi > possiede i modelli e i dati su cui sono stati addestrati, chi fissa i > criteri dentro i quali una proposta diventa valutabile, chi tiene > l’elenco dei soci e il calendario delle feste, chi può spegnere una > cosa e chi può soltanto incassarne le penali. Sono domande di > titolarità, e le domande di titolarità hanno risposte scritte, che si > chiamano statuti, contratti, licenze, atti costitutivi, clausole di > recesso, patti parasociali. Maurizio Il 20/08/26 08:28, don Luca Peyron via nexa ha scritto: > Buona lettura > https://michelekettmaier.nova100.ilsole24ore.com/2026/08/19/estinzioni-sei-… ------------------------------------------------------------------------ the knowledge gap between rich and poor is widening witten & bainbridge, how to build a digital library ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

Aug. 20, 2026