- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

109° Nexa Lunch Seminar | 22 novembre 2023, ore 13.00
by Valeria Bergantino Nov. 13, 2023

Nov. 13, 2023

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al *109° Nexa Lunch Seminar *che si terrà *mercoledì 22 novembre*, dalle ore 13.00 alle ore 14.00, con un incontro dal titolo: /*"Piattaforme digitali e autodeterminazione. Relazioni sociali, lavoro e diritti al tempo della 'governamentalità algoritmica'"*/. Ospite dell'incontro: *Giacomo Pisani* (Euricse). _L'incontro si terrà SOLO IN PRESENZA._ _SEDE FISICA __dell'incontro_: Campus Luigi Einaudi, Lungo Dora Siena, 100 Edificio D2, II piano, Meeting Room Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza (*MAPS <https://maps.app.goo.gl/jGxDQbUp2y8nD52LA>*) Di seguito maggiori dettagli: Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-109> NEXA 109° Nexa Lunch Seminar Mercoledì 22 novembre 2023, ore 13.00 - 14.00 https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-109 Piattaforme digitali e autodeterminazione Relazioni sociali, lavoro e diritti al tempo della "governamentalità algoritmica" Speaker: *GIACOMO PISANI* (Euricse) *L'INCONTRO SI TERRÀ SOLO IN PRESENZA* *SEDE FISICA*: Campus Luigi Einaudi, Lungo Dora Siena, 100 Edificio D2, II piano, Meeting Room Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza (Per maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci clicca QUI <https://www.google.com/maps/place/Campus+Luigi+Einaudi/@45.0734963,7.699408…>) Le piattaforme digitali stanno ridisegnando le modalità di relazione fra gli individui. Esse hanno veicolato la *promessa di “disintermediare” sfere sempre più ampie dell’esistenza, celando nuove forme di controllo*. Attraverso l’uso di *algoritmi opachi*, le piattaforme mettono in atto strategie di potere che agiscono su gruppi, se non sull’intera popolazione, istituendo correlazioni, differenze, assemblaggi. L’obiettivo delle piattaforme sembra essere esattamente quello di agire a partire da una valorizzazione della personalità degli utenti, intervenendo sulle loro scelte attraverso la provocazione di impercettibili smottamenti. Anche il mondo del lavoro è al centro di fenomeni di imponente trasformazione, che investono la possibilità delle persone di autodeterminarsi in maniera consapevole. In questo quadro, *la promozione del diritto all’autodeterminazione della persona può avvenire solo a condizione di garantire adeguata rappresentazione agli interessi collettivi implicati*. Il volume */Piattaforme digitali e autodeterminazione/* delinea i tratti salienti di questa sfida, assumendo il diritto all’autodeterminazione come principio di democratizzazione del mondo digitale. BIOGRAFIA - e informazioni supplementari: [Lunch109] *Giacomo PISANI* , ricercatore presso Euricse (Trento), ha conseguito l'abilitazione scientifica nazionale a professore universitario associato in Filosofia del diritto. Formatosi presso l’Università di Bari, dottore di ricerca in Diritti e Istituzioni presso l'Università di Torino, ha collaborato con vari istituti di ricerca e università, tra cui l’Iisf (Istituto italiano per gli studi filosofici), l’Airi (Associazione italiana per la ricerca industriale), l’Università di Torino. Si occupa di welfare e diritti sociali, trasformazioni del lavoro, filosofia e teoria sociale critica del diritto. Ha pubblicato articoli e saggi su diverse riviste italiane e internazionali. Tra le sue pubblicazioni si segnalano le monografie /Welfare e trasformazioni del lavoro/ (Roma, Ediesse 2019), /Piattaforme digitali e autodeterminazione/ (Modena, Mucchi 2023). *Letture consigliate e link utili:* * Pisani G. (2023). /Piattaforme digitali e autodeterminazione. Relazioni sociali, lavoro e diritti al tempo della “governamentalità algoritmica/, Mucchi, Modena * Rosenblat, A. (2018). /Uberland. How Algorithms are Rewriting the Rules of Work/, University of California Press, Oakland * Resta, G. (2019). /Governare l’innovazione tecnologica: decisioni algoritmiche, diritti digitali e principio di uguaglianza/, in «Politica del diritto», 50, 2, pp. 199-236 * Borgesius F.J.Z. (2020). /Strengthening Legal Protection Against Discrimination by Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence/, in «The International Journal of Human Rights», 24, 2020, 10, pp. 1572-1593 * Viljoen, S. (2021). /A Relational Theory of Data Governance/, in «Yale Law Journal», 131, 2, pp. 573-654 Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” <https://www.facebook.com/nexa.center/> <https://twitter.com/nexacenter> <https://www.youtube.com/user/NexaCenter> <https://www.instagram.com/nexa_center/> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3054864/admin/> #nexalunchseminar <https://twitter.com/search?q=%23nexalunchseminar&src=typd> #Euricse <https://twitter.com/Euricse> Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica), fondato nel 2006, è un centro di ricerca interdisciplinare che, in collaborazione con l’Università di Torino (in particolare il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza), studia le tecnologie digitali e il loro rapporto con la società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “Mercoledì di Nexa”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese alle ore 17 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma accessibile, i temi legati alla Rete: “intelligenza artificiale”, reti sociali, software libero, capitalismo della sorveglianza, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, condivisione di file, "big data" e "open data", “smart cities”, e molto altro. Al centro della maggior parte degli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino, i Proff. Marco Ricolfi e Maurizio Borghi dell'Università di Torino, lo staff, i Fellows del Centro Nexa e tutti i presenti. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Le registrazioni degli incontri sono disponibili qui: https://nexa.polito.it/audio-video. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Responsabile Comunicazione Centro Nexa su Internet & Società: *Valeria Bergantino*, tel: +39 011 090 7219, valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>. Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter 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

Surveillance Wages: A Taxonomy
by Daniela Tafani Nov. 13, 2023

Nov. 13, 2023

Surveillance Wages: A Taxonomy Zephyr Teachout PUBLISHED 11.06.23 One notable feature of the so-called gig economy is that workers, such as for-hire drivers and delivery workers, are often paid different amounts for performing the same task. More broadly, as work by the Markup and Veena Dubal shows, the manner in which these wages are calculated is a black box: they are determined by a complicated algorithm to which the workers have no access. At Uber, for instance, the company uses data-rich driver profiles to match the wage to the individual incentives of the driver and the needs of the platform. Uber drivers’ experiences should not, however, be understood as unique to gig work. The techniques used to extract the maximal gig worker productivity for minimal pay—such as individualized pay, schedules, benefits, and individualized behaviorally-based incentive structures—are on the verge of being imported to the formal employment sector. Moreover, gig work is increasingly the nature of work itself, with surveys showing that between 10 and 30% of Americans have some form of contract work. As a result, wage scales with set pay grades, which have been the norm for blue collar jobs for more than a century, may be on the decline. Partly as a result of this shift, the market for employee surveillance systems is booming. Monitoring systems include thumb scans, identification badges, closed circuit cameras, geolocation tracking, and sensors on tablets and vehicles. Software flags not only a decrease in productivity but also the expression of “negative attitudes.” Tools record keyboard strokes and conversations, which are then analyzed to rate an employee’s emotional status based on word patterns and content. The company Cogito, for instance, sells software to call centers that records and then analyzes calls between employees and customers, with a real-time behavioral dashboard that tells the employees when to be more empathetic, when to pick up the pace, and when to “exude more confidence and professionalism.” Supervisors have dashboards summarizing these performance metrics, which are used to determine pay and retention. In addition to making worker’s pay much less predictable, the potential spread of these management techniques has broader democratic implications. They will increase economic and racial inequality, undermine labor solidarity, and put workers in a profoundly humiliating position in relationship to their boss, one where worker speech and autonomy are highly circumscribed. If we are to have any hope of successfully regulating these new forms of technological control, we first need a clearer understanding of how they operate. To that end, this post offers a brief taxonomy of five different forms of algorithmic wage differentiation, each of which is already visible in the gig work economy: productivity-based wage adjustments, gamified wages shifted through incentive bonuses and demerits, behavioral wages, dynamic wages, and wages shifted to conduct an experiment. After surveying these different techniques, I explain in greater depth why these practices threaten to undermine important democratic values. Extreme Taylorism At the heart of management in the past century was a belief, exemplified by Taylorism, that workers were driven by simple motivations. They wanted pay, and didn’t like to work, and so close monitoring and control were required, lest workers take the pay and avoid the work. Taylorism depended on small, easy to measure tasks, regularized training, and payment based on production. Extreme Taylorism is a direct outgrowth of these former tools, but with unheard of levels of precision. Employers now measure time in the bathroom and time per unit task, not just the total number of units processed over an hour, and can thus reward or dock employees on a far more ongoing, updated basis. For instance, when Amazon follows workers physical location and tracks multitasking, it can dock pay for long breaks in real time. And with increasingly precise levels of surveillance, companies can monitor and reward productivity down to the head-swivel. Gamification Amazon started using video games in five warehouses from suburban Seattle to near Manchester in Britain, after an initial experiment in a single warehouse in late 2016. With names like MissionRacer, PicksInSpace, Dragon Duel, and CastleCrafter, the games have graphics that mimic Nintendo, according to workers (employees aren’t allowed to take pictures). Success at these games can lead to changes in wages—one worker reported that managers rewarded successful workers with “Swag Bucks,” an internal currency that can be used to make purchases. Similarly, Uber tracks millions of metrics every day and then delivers individualized tasks to drivers. At least some of this differentiation appears to be related to the “gamification” of work. The screen used by drivers has point-scoring, levels, competition with others, and ratings, which play on both positive and negative aspects of gaming—they offer engagement and possibly fun, but also pray on irrational tendencies, like gambling. And, like gambling, they appear to depend upon both personalization (differentiation) and some degree of inconsistency. Behavioral Price Discrimination Fifteen years ago, social media delivered content based on either requests by users or chronology; today, social media posts are delivered based on a data-based portrait of each individual user. The PII (personally identifiable information) is fed to algorithms which predict behavior and responsiveness. Persuasion technologies are matched with unique features to maximize the profits made by the platforms. We can expect that a similar shift is on the horizon at the workplace, if not already here. This kind of wage discrimination, which focuses on a worker’s behavior, is the area where we have the least information, and the fewest examples, but we have every reason to think it will be a growth area. Employers can combine the data collected directly on their own sites with personal data bought on the open market from third parties, who collect and aggregate social media activity, credit reports, consumer history, and driving reports. Outside of state law, there is nothing currently stopping employers from using data about, e.g., the indebtedness of a worker, to target a lower wage, knowing the worker has less flexibility to move jobs. Dynamic Labor Pricing In the gig economy, dynamic labor pricing—paying more for labor when it is low supply or high demand, and vice versa—is baked into the business model. It is also standard for consumer goods where prices are shifting constantly; according to one estimate, Amazon prices change more than 2.5 million times a day. Outside of gig work, firms—especially those with monopsony power—can write contracts that make bonuses ongoing in the same way they are ongoing for Uber drivers, and in so doing, can engage in real-time labor pricing based on demand. It is currently unclear if (or to what extent) this is happening outside of gig work, but opportunity and incentive suggest it could. Within gig work, for instance, caregivers are paid differently depending on the time of day, delivery workers are paid differently depending on demand, and pay can shift on a dime. Experimentation In the late 1920s, inspired by Frederick Taylor, a psychologist from Harvard Business School ran a series of experiments on workers at Hawthorne Works, an electric company in Illinois, that became known as “the Hawthorne Studies.” Among other things, these studies explored whether changing pay based on performance impacted productivity. In one group, they gave higher pay to those who were more productive in assembling equipment; in a control group, they did not. They found, perhaps surprisingly to modern readers, that the increased wages did not incentivize productivity. Instead, productivity was more likely to be spurred by group pressures and group standards. The experiments are interesting not merely for their results, but also as the beginning of a long history in which workers are subjected to experiments and manipulation by their employers. Since Hawthorne, firms have routinely conducted experiments on workers, testing assumptions about what will lead to the firm gathering the highest output for the wages it pays. However, until recently, wage experimentation at a level likely to reveal meaningful results was practically very difficult. This has changed with the rise of surveillance, big data, and electronic contracts with real-time bonuses, which have enabled low-cost wage experiments. For instance, when Instacart was caught using tips to supplement wages, the proceedings revealed that the company was more broadly experimenting with wages. Delivery pay was initially like piecework in farming: a flat rate per item. The company started adding bonuses, and then taking other factors into account, such as product weight and distance. And over the years, with small changes, the pay changed from being clearly tied to productivity to being a black box. Workers are not merely harmed by the end-outcome of these experiments, but also by the manipulation of the experiments themselves, which undermine any sense of stability at work. *** With this taxonomy in hand, let’s return to the democratic implications of such wage discrimination. To begin, real time and individually targeted wages will transform the nature of supervision. It undermines the importance of relationships between supervisors and mid-level decisionmakers, instead allowing upper-level management to continuously spy and tinker with low-level workers. Workers are then employed in a state of rational paranoia, where they know that they are being punished and rewarded and experimented upon, but they have no way of knowing whether any given decision they are faced with is a result of a game, an experiment, a punishment, a reward, or changing circumstances on the ground and changing needs at the job. Being dominated, watched, and controlled are destabilizing conditions even when they are occasional, and all the more so if they are the center of work life. Privacy concerns that have long attended the workplace—and never been adequately addressed—are thus even more important today, as the lack of protection from intimate intrusions enables this further harm. Beyond undermining the liberties of the moderns, intrusive surveillance and experimentation and differentiation also necessarily undermines the liberties of the ancients. The people being surveilled are not just workers but citizens, who must vote, serve on juries, share their experiences with the public, and engage in public debate. Citizens are also subject to some of the same monopoly practices in their role as consumers, but the relationship between the consumer and surveillance capitalism and the worker and the surveilled workplace is different. At work—when labor markets have a handful of dominant players—employees don’t even have the theoretical option of opting out of being watched. Negotiating the terms of surveillance and experimentation simply doesn’t happen. And unlike the consumer, the worker is surveilled for the entire scope of their workday, with no default right of respite. When you combine personalized labor pricing with the fact that most firms have strong political views, it leads to all kinds of distortions in the political sphere. Sixteen percent of workers surveyed recently reported that they had either personally experienced or witnessed political retaliation on the job. One in eight American workers believes that “someone at their job was treated unfairly, missed out on a promotion, or was fired as a result of political views or actions.” It is unclear the degree to which employers are purposefully tracking the political activities of employees, but the scope of the sweep they conduct on a daily basis means that the conversations and online behavior are necessarily being gathered, whether they are used or not. With both capacity and incentive, we should anticipate that political spying will be a growth area. In the wake of Citizens United, corporations are free to engage in explicitly political activity, to monitor and respond and dissuade and punish. And just as importantly for society, even if an employer refrains from acting on this information, workers, aware of this capacity, will be discouraged from engaging in open, free debate. I assume that these techniques are not yet the norm, but that the infrastructure to enable them is being put into place as we speak. We know from recent rise of targeted ads just how quickly business practices can change with the arrival of new technological tool. Given that, we should treat these discriminatory wages as a present threat, and think now about how to limit their reach. Key tools involve not only privacy legislation, and absolute bans on the collection of certain data, but using non-discrimination principles to require employers, especially large ones, to pay for the job on a structured pay scale, instead of tailoring pay to individual profiles. https://lpeproject.org/blog/surveillance-wages-a-taxonomy/

1 0

Re: [nexa] "How a billionaire-backed network of AI advisers took over Washington"
by maurizio lana Nov. 12, 2023

Nov. 12, 2023

Il 12/11/23 14:53, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> ha scritto: > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 14:31:09 +0100 > From: "J.C. DE MARTIN"<juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> > To: Nexa<nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] "How a billionaire-backed network of AI advisers took > over Washington" > > *How a billionaire-backed network of AI advisers took over Washington* > > /A sprawling network spread across Congress, federal agencies and think > tanks is pushing policymakers to put AI apocalypse at the top of the > agenda — potentially boxing out other worries and benefiting top AI > companies with ties to the network./ a proposito di "a sprawling network spread across Congress, federal agencies and think tanks", segnalo questo articolo sul Domenicale del Sole24ore di oggi 12 novembre:m Luigino Bruni. «La bolla delle società di consulenza» che recensisce Mariana Mazzucato, Rosie Collington, Il grande imbroglio, Laterza. Mazzucato e Collington mostrano che è un problema che riguarda tutti (che si presenta in tutti i paesi) Maurizio «La nostra analisi dell’industria della consulenza traccia un quadro cupo della situazione attuale. Tutti questi contratti con società che interpretano i ruoli più vari (consigliere, legittimatrici di decisioni controverse, appaltatrici di servizi esternalizzati) indeboliscono le imprese, infantilizzano il settore pubblico e distorcono l’economia» (p. 12). È questa la tesi principale del bel libro di Mariana Mazzucato e Rosie Collington, un saggio che tocca un tema decisivo e troppo trascurato del capitalismo contemporaneo, perché le molte forme della consulenza sono cresciute come un’edera attorno all’albero dell’economia e delle istituzioni, ormai fanno parte del paesaggio e non riusciamo più a percepirne la dimensione parassita e invasiva. Ma perché le società di consulenza soprattutto le grandi compagnie globali – da strumento di aiuto (come si presentano) sono, o dovrebbero essere, una debolezza di imprese, governo e istituzioni? E quando, e dove, e grazie a chi la consulenza da risorsa è diventata una minaccia? E perché l’industria cresce così velocemente, con un fatturato globale sﬁora i mille miliardi di dollari l’anno? Il libro, attraverso i vari capitoli (che sono forse troppi, con ripetizioni evitabili, con molti dati-fatti e non abbastanza teoria che invece potevamo aspettarci, visto l’alto proﬁlo della Mazzucato), cerca di rispondere esattamente a questa domanda cruciale. Una premessa. Nel XX secolo il paradigma dominante era la democrazia, e quindi la partecipazione. Nel XXI secolo il paradigma vincente e quindi ormai pervasivo è il business con le sue nuove élite e profeti: se vuoi fare una cosa seria devi imitare le grandi imprese, e per imitarle devi imparare da chi sa come si fanno le cose. Una pervasività che dall’economia è emigrata ad ogni tipo di istituzione, sempre più quelle politiche. Le autrici sono molto preoccupate del crescente ruolo dei consulenti dentro Governi dei Paesi e nelle istituzioni internazionali – e nelle Ong, nelle religioni e nelle chiese, aggiungo io. Ecco allora splendere la ﬁgura del consulente top-di-gamma, che, con spettacolari power point e citazioni ad effetto di poeti e guru, si presenta come una ﬁgura di medico universale delle istituzioni. In quanto tecnico non incontra la difﬁdenza che hanno incontrato gli esperti di ieri (professori, intellettuali, persino scienziati), perché i nuovi medici sono ideologicamente neutrali: parlano in nome della oggettiva tecnica, e quindi le loro diagnosi e le loro terapie sono auto-evidenti. I due aspetti per me cruciali del libro sono l’infantilizzazione e l’outsourcing delle competenze. L’infantilizzazione dei governi (cap. 6), ma anche delle organizzazioni, nasce dalla progressiva riduzione di autonomia delle imprese in mano alla consulenza. Ciò che all’inizio si presenta come un aiuto al management, con il tempo diventa una presenza via via più pervasiva e sostitutiva, che cresce insieme all’insicurezza di imprenditori e management che, presto, si ritrovano a perdere autonomia per le scelte più importanti. Si crea quella che le autrici chiamano una versa e propria “dipendenza” (addiction) da consulenti, e, come tutte le dipendenze, per mantenere domani la stessa soddisfazione di oggi devo aumentare la dote. Ciò che nel Novecento era afﬁdato al management sta passando alla consulenza, in un contratto narcisistico mutuamente vantaggioso, almeno così appare ad entrambe le parti – la dipendenza perniciosa si rivela col tempo (p. 156). La consulenza, poi, cresce soprattutto come risposta ad una domanda dal mondo delle imprese e delle istituzioni: «l’offerta è una risposta ad una domanda» (p. 104). E ciò perché la presenza delle grandi società di consulenza svolge la funzione di certiﬁcazione di scelte delicate e controverse, sulle quali le imprese-istituzioni sono insicure, in un mercato e un mondo sempre più complesso. E così il consulente certiﬁca – come si certiﬁcano i bilanci – che quella scelta è seria, tranquillizzando non solo gli stakeholders ma anche e soprattutto gli stessi imprenditori e manager: «I consulenti vengono assoldati perché possono fornire una legittimazione alle decisioni del manager» (p. 127). L’infantilizzazione è dunque perdita di autonomia, di responsabilità e di controllo sulle scelte che vengono “appaltate” a terzi; ma, e qui sta il punto, una volta che la parte più importante delle dinamiche aziendali sono esternalizzate le aziende perdono conoscenza, know-how e know-why, e si ritrovano sempre più dipendenti da chi quelle conoscenze le ha, e che usa spesso in conﬂitto oggettivo di interesse: le stesse compagnie assistono i governi per ridurre le emissioni di CO2 e le imprese che le aumentano (p. 241). Ecco perché la quota di valore aggiunto che va alla consulenza non è tecnicamente proﬁtto ma rendita (pp. 103 e ss.). L’esternalizzazione non si limita alle competenze, perché stiamo assistendo anche ad outsourcing delle relazioni e delle emozioni aziendali. Se ai consulenti di cui parla il libro aggiungiamo anche la grande proliferazione di coach, counselor, psicologi del lavoro, facilitatori, esperti di risoluzione di conﬂitti…, ci accorgiamo che le imprese stanno rinunciando a gestire non solo strategie e governance: stanno rinunciando a gestire anche le loro persone, soprattutto le loro criticità e le fragilità, come hanno rinunciato alla mensa e alle pulizie appaltandole ad agenzie esterne. Il consulente è un mediatore, a cui io impresa do l’incarico di “toccarti” al mio posto, per evitare il contagio della relazione. È una forma di immunitas, direbbe R. Esposito. La consulenza è dunque buona solo se segue il “principio di sussidiarietà”, se è di aiuto al management e non sostituto come invece in genere accade, perché il mondo della consulenza è quasi per natura anti-sussidiario – arriva con soluzioni e protocolli che troppo velocemente applica alla realtà senza averla prima sufﬁciente e adeguatamente auscultata. C’è, inﬁne, un altro grande pericolo che le autrici segnalano (insieme a molti altri). È quello del potere senza rischio. Queste imprese di consulenza inﬂuenzano e spesso dettano le scelte delle aziende ma non si assumono le conseguenze di queste azioni. Si spezza così il nesso tra potere e responsabilità, che era al cuore non solo delle imprese ma, come dicono molte volte la Mazzucato e la Collington, della stessa democrazia. Il saggio è dunque un Sos politico e civile lanciato al cuore del nostro capitalismo, che è stato sempre governato da élite (lo sapevano bene già Pareto e Mosca nell’Ottocento), ma ora le élite sono sempre più invisibili perché nascoste sotto la retorica della tecnica. Mariana Mazzucato, Rosie Collington Il grande imbroglio Laterza, pagg. 352, € 26 > > By Brendan Bordelon > > 10/13/2023 05:00 AM EDT > > An organization backed by Silicon Valley billionaires and tied to > leading artificial intelligence firms is funding the salaries of more > than a dozen AI fellows in key congressional offices, across federal > agencies and at influential think tanks. > > The fellows funded by Open Philanthropy, which is financed primarily by > billionaire Facebook co-founder and Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz > <https://www.openphilanthropy.org/about-us/> and his wife Cari Tuna, are > already involved in negotiations that will shape Capitol Hill’s > accelerating plans to regulate AI. And they’re closely tied to a > powerful influence network that’s pushing Washington to focus on the > technology’s long-term risks — a focus critics fear will divert Congress > from more immediate rules that would tie the hands of tech firms. > > [...] > > continua qui: > https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/open-philanthropy-funding-ai-polic… > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL:<http://server-nexa.polito.it/pipermail/nexa/attachments/20231112/7579ebf3/a…> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 13:53:11 +0000 > From: Roberto Dolci<rob.dolci(a)aizoon.us> > To: "J.C. DE MARTIN"<juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it>, Nexa > <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] "How a billionaire-backed network of AI advisers > took over Washington" > Message-ID:<52dfb5fd4e954accbee3dddc0a8f23bb(a)aizoon.us> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > L’Executive Order contiene dei buoni principi ma sbaglia completamente l’approccio all’open source e specialmente al tema del controllo, favorendo le grandi multinazionali a discapito di piccole aziende, ricercatori e spinoff. Un pasticcio, di cui ho scritto su Zafferano.News ieri. > Ciao > Rob > > From: nexa<nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> On Behalf Of J.C. DE MARTIN > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2023 7:31 AM > To: Nexa<nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] " > How a billionaire-backed network of AI advisers took over Washington > > A sprawling network spread across Congress, federal agencies and think tanks is pushing policymakers to put AI apocalypse at the top of the agenda — potentially boxing out other worries and benefiting top AI companies with ties to the network. > > By Brendan Bordelon > > 10/13/2023 05:00 AM EDT > > An organization backed by Silicon Valley billionaires and tied to leading artificial intelligence firms is funding the salaries of more than a dozen AI fellows in key congressional offices, across federal agencies and at influential think tanks. > > The fellows funded by Open Philanthropy, which is financed primarily by billionaire Facebook co-founder and Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz<https://eu-west-1.protection.sophos.com?d=openphilanthropy.org&u=aHR0cHM6Ly…> and his wife Cari Tuna, are already involved in negotiations that will shape Capitol Hill’s accelerating plans to regulate AI. And they’re closely tied to a powerful influence network that’s pushing Washington to focus on the technology’s long-term risks — a focus critics fear will divert Congress from more immediate rules that would tie the hands of tech firms. > > [...] > > continua qui:https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/open-philanthropy-funding-ai-p…<https://eu-west-1.protection.sophos.com?d=politico.com&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucG…> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL:<http://server-nexa.polito.it/pipermail/nexa/attachments/20231112/328eb9b4/a…> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > ------------------------------ > > End of nexa Digest, Vol 175, Issue 11 > ************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ e non sapevano che celavo una continua attesa d'andarmene D. M. Turoldo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maurizio Lana Università del Piemonte Orientale Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli

2 1

"It’s shockingly easy to buy sensitive data about US military personnel"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 11, 2023

Nov. 11, 2023

*It’s shockingly easy to buy sensitive data about US military personnel* /A new report exposes the privacy and national security concerns created by data brokers. US senators tell MIT Technology Review the industry needs to be regulated. / By Tate Ryan-Mosley November 6, 2023 For as little as $0.12 per record, data brokers in the US are selling sensitive private data about active-duty military members and veterans, including their names, home addresses, geolocation, net worth, and religion, and information about their children and health conditions. In a unsettling study published on Monday <https://techpolicy.sanford.duke.edu/data-brokers-and-the-sale-of-data-on-us…>, researchers from Duke University approached 12 data brokers in the US and asked what would be necessary to buy this kind of information; they ultimately purchased thousands of records about American service members, finding that many brokers offered to sell the data with minimal vetting and were willing to deal with buyers using email domains based in both the US and Asia. [...] continua qui: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/11/06/1083002/sensitive-data-about-us…

1 0

cory doctorow
by Stefano Quintarelli Nov. 7, 2023

Nov. 7, 2023

Stasera ore 21:00 discussione su – The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation – Cory Doctorow L’incontro sulla “truffa di Internet”, in lingua inglese, previsto per lo scorso 11 ottobre che non ha avuto luogo per motivi tecnici. su youtube o via zoom https://copernicani.it/the-internet-con-how-to-seize-the-means-of-computati… https://www.youtube.com/@Copernicani vi aspetto numerosi! :-)

3 3

Malgieri e Pasquale, "Licensing high-risk artificial intelligence: Toward ex ante justification for a disruptive technology"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 7, 2023

Nov. 7, 2023

*Licensing high-risk artificial intelligence: Toward ex ante justification for a disruptive technology * Gianclaudio Malgieri, Frank Pasquale https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105899 /Under a Creative Commons license/ The regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) has heavily relied on ex post, reactive tools. This approach has proven inadequate, as numerous foreseeable problems arising out of commercial development and applications of AI have harmed vulnerable persons and communities, with few (and sometimes no) opportunities for recourse. Worse problems are highly likely in the future. By requiring quality control measures before AI is deployed, an ex ante approach would often mitigate and sometimes entirely prevent injuries that AI causes or contributes to. Licensing is an important tool of ex ante regulation, and should be applied in many high-risk domains of AI. Indeed, policymakers and even some leading AI developers and vendors are calling for licensure in the area. To substantiate licensing proposals, this article specifies optimal terms of licensure for AI necessary to justify its use. Given both documented and potential harms arising out of high-risk AI systems, licensing agencies should require firms to demonstrate that their AI meets clear requirements for security, non-discrimination, accuracy, appropriateness, and correctability before being deployed. Under this ex ante model of regulation, AI developers would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that their technology is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, and not illegitimate in its lawful bases and purposes. While the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) can provide key benchmarks here for ex post regulation, the proposed AI Act (AIA) offers a first regulatory attempt towards an ex ante licensure regime in high-risk areas, but it should be strengthened through an expansion of its scope and substantive content and through greater transparency of the ex ante justification process. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923001097

1 0

Quei robocani che si chiamano "lodicevoio..."
by M. Fioretti Nov. 7, 2023

Nov. 7, 2023

Sviluppi robotici assolutamente ovvi, forse il solo problema e' non averne parlato abbastanza allora: https://stop.zona-m.net/2022/02/police-robodogs-are-all-called-toldya/ Marco -- Help me write my NEXT MILLION WORDS for digital awareness: https://stop.zona-m.net/2021/10/funding-2021-2022/

2 3

Fwd: seminario Paolo Ciuccarelli @ OGR
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 6, 2023

Nov. 6, 2023

Ricevo e volentieri diffondo. jc DATE/VENUE ========== Wednesday *8th November*, *12.00 p.m.* OGR Tech,***Sala Mezzanino *Corso Castelfidardo 22, 10128 Torino SPEAKER ======== *Prof. Paolo Ciuccarelli*, Northeastern University (Boston, USA) and Politecnico di Milano TITLE ====== *Designing with Data, Data for Design * ABSTRACT ========= For an architect, and a designer, data could be seen as a new (!), very peculiar, material; one that opens up to new form-giving processes and outcomes, driven by its set of underlying technologies. A material that the design process itself may use to work (better) and produce through its operations, thus leading to a potential (needed?) reframing of design as a practice and as a discipline. The talk will delve into this reciprocal relationship: how can design optimize data-intensive processes to enhance their effectiveness and significance? In what ways can data and algorithms be leveraged to improve (?) the design process? Potential impact and consequences of this two-folded relationship will be discussed. SPEAKER ======== Architect and Communication Designer, Paolo Ciuccarelli joined Northeastern University in 2019 as founding director of the Center for Design and Professor of Design. At Politecnico he coordinated the Communication Design program (BSc and MSc), has been a member of the board at the PhD in Design and co-directs the DensityDesign Research Lab: an award-winning laboratory doing research on data visualization and information design he founded in 2010. Paolo’s research focuses on the design transformations that help make sense of data and information to improve decision making processes, especially with non-expert stakeholders and for controversial complex social issues. He also works in developing tools and methods to understand and orient the evolution of design as a discipline and a practice, in the frame of a meta-design approach and with a focus on emerging technologies, including AI. Paolo Ciuccarelli is author of best-paper awarded publications, lectured at Royal College of Arts, ENSCI Les Ateliers, Glasgow School of Arts, king’s College and Stanford Humanities Centre and has been invited to talk at conferences such as Eyeo, TEDx, Visualized, NetSci, Congreso Futuro. He's partner at The Visual Agency, Senior Affiliate at Harvard metaLAB and co-editor at Big Data & Society – SAGE Journals.

1 0

Fidarsi o non fidarsi della IA che parla il linguaggio degli umani?
by de petra giulio Nov. 6, 2023

Nov. 6, 2023

Scusandomi per le parole antropoformizzanti del titolo, segnalo tuttavia, in particolare per i nexiani di passaggio a Roma, un nuovo incontro organizzato dalla Scuola critica del digitale del CRS dal titolo * "Fidarsi o non fidarsi della IA generativa che parla il linguaggio degli umani?" * A parlarne sarà *Carlo Batini*. A questo indirizzo si può trovare la descrizione dei contenuti dell'incontro. https://centroriformastato.it/iniziativa/fidarsi-o-non-fidarsi-della-ia-gen… L'incontro si svolgerà a *Roma mercoledì 15 novembre in via della Dogana Vecchia 5 a partire dalle 17,30* Sarà possibile partecipare sia di persona che a distanza, collegandosi tramite il link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85468061334 A presto Giulio

1 0

MEMENTO | 166° Mercoledì di Nexa | 8 novembre 2023, ore 17.00
by Valeria Bergantino Nov. 6, 2023

Nov. 6, 2023

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì 8 novembre*, alle ore 17.00, si terrà il *166° Mercoledì di Nexa* con un incontro dal titolo /*"Etica del digitale ed euristiche mentali"*/. Ospite dell'incontro: *Guglielmo Tamburrini* (Università di Napoli Federico II)/*.*/ _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-166 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