- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Artificial Intelligence, Persuasive Technology and Manipulation
by Stefano Faraoni July 20, 2023

July 20, 2023

Buongiorno a tutti, Leggo questa mailing list con estremo piacere da tempo, e oggi per la prima volta provo a contribuire. Il mio articolo "Persuasive Technology and computational manipulation: hypernudging out of mental self-determination" e' appena stato pubblicato da Frontiers on Artificial Intelligence, e spero possa farvi piacere leggerlo. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1216340/full Parla di manipolazione computazionale, dark patterns e hypernudge, e della necessita' di riconoscere un nuovo diritto fondamentale, il diritto alla sovranita' cognitiva o autodeterminazione mentale. Un saluto a tutti. Stefano *Stefano Faraoni* *Founder and DirectorAvvocato Patrocinante in CassazioneAdjunct Professor in Legal English, University of TurinPGR in AI Law, University of York* *Lumen Legis - Law Firm* INTERNAZIONALE | CONTRACT LAW | IT LAW | DIRITTO CIVILE | DIRITTO PENALE *w*: lumenlegis.com *@*: stefano.faraoni(a)lumenlegis.com **** Riservatezza/Confidentiality **** In ottemperanza al Regolamento Europeo 679/2016 (GDPR) in materia di protezione dei dati personali, le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono strettamente riservate ed esclusivamente indirizzate al destinatario indicato (oppure alla persona responsabile di rimetterlo al destinatario). Vogliate tener presente che qualsiasi uso, riproduzione o divulgazione della informativa in esso contenuta è vietata. Nel caso in cui lo aveste ricevuto per errore, vi preghiamo di accettare le nostre scuse e di distruggerlo, informandoci immediatamente tramite l’indirizzo e-mail stefano.faraoni(a)lumenlegis.com / According to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) concerning privacy, if you are not the addressee (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person) you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apology and destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system, then inform us immediately sending a message to stefano.faraoni(a)lumenlegis.com

2 2

AI and antitrust in 10 minutes
by Daniela Tafani July 20, 2023

July 20, 2023

Daron Acemoglu Thank you, Cristina, for that wonderful introduction and to you and Tommaso for inviting me. […] As Cristina said, I'm going to talk about something that's partly inspired by my book. AI and antitrust in 10 minutes. So that's a tall order especially if I try to blend in ideas from the book, so let me jump into it. I'm going to do 10 question and answers in 10 minutes, but since that's a very short time I'll just give you the answers. I'll let your imagination do the job of the what the questions might have been to which. These are the answers. - Yes, generative AI has great potential, so I am completely convinced that this is a very interesting technology that can bring lots of goods and has capabilities so we can build on that. But I think let's move forward. - And yes, I believe that monopoly is everywhere in the tech sector. So here, perhaps I differ from many IO economists, and I subscribe to the duck test. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. So if you have companies that have reached sizes that have never been in human history, and that dominate a particular line of business, they are monopolies. So we have to grapple with that. And that means all sorts of regulatory tools have to be considered, including antitrust. So this is absolutely on target. - And yes, in my view this is getting worse with foundation models. Because there is a likelihood that we may go towards a duopoly. With Microsoft Open AI and Google as the two key players, even though open source and many other competitors are going to try to get into foundation models, but the current business model of foundation models is very resource intensive. So that raises the possibility, does not in any way creates a certainty, but it raises the possibility. These two companies and their models are going to be the dominant ones on which many others will have to build, raising all of the issues of vertical product creation and all sorts of other questions that are going to be central for policymakers and economists to grapple with. - But no, I actually don't think monopoly power leading to high prices is the main problem that we're dealing with. You know, of course, that is a problem. But if the only issue was that because the foundation models are controlled by, you know, Google and Microsoft, they’re going to charge higher prices, and as a result, the apps that are developed on them are going to be more expensive, that would be, of course a pity and it's something we can do something about, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. So we get many new apps. They cost a little bit more. We don't get quite the consumer surplus. Woe is us, but not the end of the world. The problem is the direction of innovation. The problem is that the current market structure is selecting a particular direction of innovation. And that has much more sweeping consequences. Taking the set of products and technologies as given and pricing them above marginal cost and thus losing some of the welfare triangle is not the main issue. There’s the potential for doing much greater damage. No, this is not because of existential risk. In fact, like Cristina was implying, when all of these tech leaders are talking about existential risk I see it as either a blind spot or a ploy for making us not worry about the bigger risks. The bigger risks in my mind are in the labour market. Most of us earn our living in the labour market, so what happens to jobs is the most important issue. And the current direction of AI looks like it is going to follow some of the trends we have seen with digital technologies before. Failing to create the complementarities which human workers and skills, and instead going much toward much more towards automation, hence generating inequality, potential job losses, especially for workers without very specialised skills such as those with postgraduate degree. - And no, it's not just economics. There is a real danger here that the current direction of generative AI could again continue existing trends that we saw in social media degrade political conversations. Increase the amount of misinformation and disinformation, with a much more powerful tool. Create a particular type of ecosystem in online forums where people are drawn on the basis of emotion rather than engagement. And hence generally act towards the exploitation of people in their capacities and duties as democratic citizen. It is this twin: Inequality and Elimination of good jobs in the labour market, as well as erosion of democratic capacity that I think are most problematic. - No, I am not a Luddite. So I am not saying that this is in the nature of technology, nor that we should oppose technological change. The issue here is that we are not along the right path. What's great about technology in general and generative AI in particular, that it's a very highly malleable type of technological platform or what some economic historians used to call general purpose technology, meaning that you can use it for creating many apps, many different types of sub technologies and many different directions are possible. It is not complete idle talk. When people used to talk about social media and other online tools creating new democratic spaces today, it looks like very naive. When people in the 2000s said oh, online communication and social media are going to democratise communication. But that potential was there, and that potential is much greater with AI. When some people in the tech industry talk about generative AI being useful to humans in terms of getting better information, performing better tasks so generative AI… actually, I think the great potential that I mentioned at the beginning is precisely in being a human complementary technology. The tragedy of our current age is that we have almost all information that is at least codified available in some form. But we do not have the processing power to decide which one we should retrieve, how we should interpret how we should process, and which types of information we should engage with in different forms. Generative AI has the capability to improve human interaction with information and hence generate a lot of tasks, not just for knowledge workers, but for electricians, for carpenters, for educators, for healthcare workers. So that possibility is there. - But no, we are not going in the right direction. So we do need a redirection of technological change. - And no. I don't think it is naive or unrealistic to think about the redirection of technological change. One view which is common among some economists and some tech leaders goes back to either to the view that technology somehow has a preordained path and we just have to follow it. No, I am denying that and I think history is quite a good guide on showing how malleable technology is. Goes back to a saying by Ferdinand de Lesseps of fame, from the Suez and the Panama Canal, which we discussed in this book where he said, don't worry, men of genius would arise and solve all problems. Who are today's men of genius. Maybe some Altman or Elon Musk. But no, I don't think we should trust them. So I think the direction of technology is malleable, but it's also a societal choice. - And yes, as Cristina was hinting, antitrust has a very important role in this. For two reasons. One, because if we want alternatives. They are not very likely to come from a duopolistic or highly oligopolistic structure, especially one further empowered by killer acquisitions and these companies being a block other types of technologies that do not fit well with their business model. So if we want more alternatives that go more in a human complementary direction or more pro democratic direction, or create a more open competitive environment, I think we have to use antitrust tools including potential breakup of the largest companies which are too big and one other reason is because this type of power comes with enormous social power. And by that social power, I mean economic power, and also general social power. Tech companies have an enormous sway on public opinion, which I think is associated with their mega profits. And again, I don't think that creates a healthy environment. - And no, finally, I don't think antitrust is the main tool as Cristina was also hinting in her introductory comment. I think antitrust is a very blunt tool and I think for the redirection of technology we need a suite of tools which should include exactly how data is used and accessed. We need a new interoperability type of approach as well as how do we compensate and how do we actually encourage more creation of creative data. We also need to provide explicit incentives, such as, for example, those that have been successful in the field of renewable technology, where we encourage more of the socially valuable types of technologies. And I think there are a number of tools for that and we may also need more tax policies to discourage the worst types of business models and create room for alternative business models. So I am actually quite favourable, although I think much more study is needed, to a digital ad tax that creates more openness for alternative business models based on things like Wikipedia or subscription models in the online space. - Finally, I think we also need to rethink other tools that we have, like fiscal tools that currently create a very asymmetric playing field between capital and labour and going back to the job market and labour market inequality issues. I think equating marginal tax rate between capital and labour are things that we should definitely revisit. Thank you. https://mailchi.mp/cepr/central-bank-communication-rpn-seminar-series-516707

4 6

Re: [nexa] AI and antitrust in 10 minutes
by Giuseppe Attardi July 19, 2023

July 19, 2023

Magistrale. In particolare sono convinto della necessità di scoraggiare il business model dei servizi gratuiti finanziati con la pubblicità, introducendo una tassazione altamente progressiva dei ricavi pubblicitari, come propone il nobel Paul Romer. So I am actually quite favourable, […] to a digital ad tax that creates more openness for alternative business models based on things like Wikipedia or subscription models in the online space. — Beppe > On 19 Jul 2023, at 04:44, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > From: Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> > To: "nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] AI and antitrust in 10 minutes > Message-ID: <08789adc08254f80af9be9f171ad7521(a)unipi.it> > > Daron Acemoglu > Thank you, Cristina, for that wonderful introduction and to you and Tommaso for inviting me. […] > As Cristina said, I'm going to talk about something that's partly inspired by my book. AI and > antitrust in 10 minutes. So that's a tall order especially if I try to blend in ideas from the book, so > let me jump into it. I'm going to do 10 question and answers in 10 minutes, but since that's a very > short time I'll just give you the answers. I'll let your imagination do the job of the what the questions > might have been to which. These are the answers. > …

2 1

Relazione Annuale 2023 - Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM)
by Luigi Scorca July 19, 2023

July 19, 2023

Si segnala la pubblicazione, in data odierna, della Relazione Annuale 2023 dell'Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM). https://www.agcom.it/documentazione/documento?p_p_auth=fLw7zRht&p_p_id=101_…

1 0

“Emergence” isn’t an explanation, it’s a prayer. A critique of Emergentism in Artificial Intelligence
by Daniela Tafani July 19, 2023

July 19, 2023

“Emergence” isn’t an explanation, it’s a prayer A critique of Emergentism in Artificial Intelligence <https://ykulbashian.medium.com/?source=post_page-----ef239d3687bf----------…> [cardboarddreams] Emergence is the notion that in a complex system, the interactions of the whole may exhibit properties that are not present in the individual parts. It is most often applied to examples in physics and nature, such as the collective behaviours of ant colonies, the self-organizing principles of social groups, or the macro properties of molecules. In the last few decades, it has given rise to emergentist perspectives of human cognition<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01116.x>, and even of consciousness<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7597170/>. These are based on the recognition that the complexities and mysteries of the human mind, being a part of nature, may be characterized as emergent phenomena. This approach has an intuitive appeal. It is supported by the superficial facts: the brain — the source of intelligence and consciousness— is most certainly a complex of interconnected neurons. Emergentist interpretations of human behaviour may also boast some recent wins—the proliferation of LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT) may be seen as one such success. This has reignited the discussion of whether emergence is the best way to frame intelligence. You may have noticed that the last paragraph switched between two subtly different uses of “emergence”. The first use was to describe an observed emergent property; consciousness, we have seen it, likely emerges out of neuronal interactions. The second was to use it as a hypothesis to predict the outcome of a complex, unknown system, with the hope that a desired property will emerge; e.g. intelligence will arise from the interactions of artificial neurons at scale. The latter example is the driving motivation behind the multi-million dollar Human Brain Project<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project>. The project justifies its cost by leaning on evidence from observed instances of emergence. Doing so paints emergence as a theory; that is, existing observations can be used to justify future predictions. But emergence is not a theory. Emergence can only be ascribed to a phenomenon in retrospect, once you already know what has “emerged”. The higher-level properties that emerge are qualitatively different from those at the lower-level — otherwise it wouldn’t be “emergence”. So by necessity they could not have been predicted from the lower-level ones. The properties of “intelligence” could not have been logically foreseen from the properties of neurons unless you had already observed that property emerge in a similar substrate. And even then it’s just a guess that is likely to be wrong given the complexity of the interactions involved; small differences can easily invalidate the hypothesis. In both cases emergence gives no new information: when explaining existing examples it gives you no new insights about the processes except that they happen; and when predicting unknown behaviours it gives very poor guarantees that anything you expect to happen will do so. Emergence is only really valid as a general metaphysical classification of certain phenomena. It’s a metaphysical category, like “cause”, “effect” or “change”. Using the word when explaining cognition is not wrong per se, it just has no real meaning or explanatory force. It’s like having a theory of “thing-happened-ness” — it’s correct, but void of content. Take, for example, the following quotes from a review article on emergence: This process gives rise to an emergent tendency to facilitate perception of items consistent with the patterns of English orthography, without explicitly representing this knowledge in a system of rules, as in other approaches. … However, such modes of thought themselves might be viewed as emergent consequences of a lifetime of thought-structuring practice supported by culture and education. Emergence in Cognitive Science, McClelland<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01116.x> If you removed the word “emergent” from the above two sentences, would anything important change? Indeed any sentence that includes “emergent” would give the same information if you removed it; “it gives rise to emergent properties” means the same as “it gives rise to properties”, or “there is an emergent tendency” is not substantially different from “there is a tendency”. Adding “emergent” to any sentence doesn’t increase its useful information content.¹ Emergence has no information that fundamentally differentiates it from a “miracle”. If I were to say that applying transformers<https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762> to Neural Networks creates intelligence through a miracle, I would be ridiculed. Were I to say that they create intelligence through emergent interactions, suddenly they gain an air of scientific credibility — but what have I added to the conversation with the use of that word? What quantifiable scientific facts are entailed in the term “emergent”? There are none. In cognitive science, emergence is regularly used to “explain” the connection between two phenomena, when it is otherwise complex and difficult to predict: e.g. how neuronal firing gives rise to consciousness, or transformers to the appearance of language comprehension. Where there may be a connection, but nothing more is known or can be proved, emergence is a placeholder that fills the gap. The word gives weight and gravitas to what is essentially a blank space. Despite emergence contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, as a concept it admittedly has a compelling intuitive appeal. There is a wonderful feeling about the notion of emergence. It does seem to be adding something valuable, as if you’ve discovered a magical ingredient by which you can explain mysterious phenomena. That’s the reason it continues to be popular, and gets inserted into scientific discussions. It convinces the listener that something has been explained with scientific rigour when all we’ve done is to say “it’s complicated”. Besides the good feeling, however, emergence is void of any explanatory power. And so it has no scientific value in a predictive capacity. You can’t use it to say anything about what an unknown system will do; only what you hope it will do. When applied to pie-in-the-sky AI futurism, emergence has become synonymous with “I’m sure the system will work itself out”. It indicates that the author has a feeling that a complex system will align at some point, but no clear sense of how, why, or when. Insofar as intelligence does manifest in a specific instance, “emergence” doesn’t tell us anything interesting about how it happened. And insofar as intelligence hasn’t yet manifested, emergence doesn’t tell us when it will or what direction to take to get there. In the field of AI development, emergence is invoked whenever someone encounters a phenomenon in the human mind and has no idea how to even start explaining it (e.g. art, socialization, empathy, transcendental aesthetics, DnD, etc). If said researcher already has a working theory of AI, this realization is disheartening. So they look deeper into the matter, find some point of overlap between the existing theory and the missing behaviour, and assume that with enough time and complexity the missing pieces will emerge. Emergence is attractive in such cases because it puts the author’s mind at ease, by making it seem like they have a viable mechanism that only needs more time to be vindicated. It placates their inner watchdog, the one that demands concrete, scientific explanations. Emergence, being related to complexity and superficially validated by experiments such as Conway’s Game of Life, is enough to lull that watchdog back to sleep. This justifies continuing to ignore any shortcomings in a theoretical model, and persisting on the current path. Like the proverbial man who searches for his lost keys under the lamplight, because that is where the light is, he hopes that with enough persistence his keys will “emerge”. The only other alternative is to admit failure, and to give up any hope of accomplishing what you want within this lifetime. Scientists, it seems, can have superstitions too. And emergence has a powerful narcotic effect: it feels so reasonable and credible on a gut level². There are many factors that prevent a given researcher from investigating emergence too deeply and realizing that it lacks any substance. First, there appears to be a lot of external evidence to back it up in the natural world. This, as was pointed out, equivocates between retrospective and prospective uses of the term, and so legitimate uses are being conscripted to justify the illegitimate ones. Secondly, the fact that emergence exclusively concerns itself with intractably complex systems means anything behind its curtain by definition can’t be studied. So it conveniently excludes itself from exactly that analysis which would reveal it to be hollow. In the end emergence isn’t an explanation; it’s an observation combined with a recognition of ignorance. Wherever emergence shows up there is an implicit acceptance that everyone involved is at a loss for how to approach the topic. It’s not that properties like intelligence won’t emerge from neural activity, it’s that emergence is a placeholder that justifies and promotes a lack of interest in exploring the details behind the connection. It discourages investigation. By invoking the term, we are merely thanking the nature gods for granting us this emergent property (aka property), and trying not to examine their gifts too profanely or with ingratitude. This impulse is understandable, since we don’t think we’ll discover an answer if we were to dig in. But we shouldn’t allow our insecurities to masquerade as science, or else they may become ingrained to the extent that they are difficult to uproot. A false answer stands in the way of a true one. ¹ This used to say ‘You can remove “emergent” from any sentence and it would mean the same thing’, but that has caused some confusion, so to clarify: the word “emergent” when used as an adjective doesn’t add new or useful information; you won’t know any more about the subject than you did before. ² A self-aware researcher should notice if they have a strong intuitive or emotional reason for holding on to the idea. If you ever feel that emergence is so self-evident that it can never be disproved, that should give you pause — perhaps you have strayed outside the bounds of scientific inquiry and into metaphysical expositions. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter… https://ykulbashian.medium.com/emergence-isnt-an-explanation-it-s-a-prayer-…

2 1

Re: [nexa] AI and antitrust in 10 minutes
by Giuseppe Attardi July 19, 2023

July 19, 2023

> On 19 Jul 2023, at 07:21, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 13:17:32 +0200 > From: Fabio Alemagna <falemagn(a)gmail.com> > To: Guido Vetere <vetere.guido(a)gmail.com> > Cc: Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it>, > "nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] AI and antitrust in 10 minutes > Message-ID: > <CACGmXuO94NnbKmRO3zqqazLNWOcOFry3=p-MFocTjodu1PmcLw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> Il giorno mer 19 lug 2023 alle ore 12:51 Guido Vetere >> <vetere.guido(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: >> >> per quel poco che ho studiato la questione del cross-lingual transfer learning, la cosa riguarda il trasferimento da lingue con molte risorse (leggi: inglese) a lingue con scarse risorse >> c'è tutta una questione di relativismo culturale nella quale ora non è il caso di addentrarsi, ma in tutti i casi vale il discorso del downsizing: è difficile - per dire - che sia necessario trasferire qualcosa di urdu in italiano, quindi basterebbero coppie inglese-x > > Se la produzione letteraria in un dato linguaggio è scarsa, viene da > sé che il contributo ai parametri del modello sarà anch'esso "scarso". > Non vedo dunque il problema. Non è detto, ci sono tecniche di ribilanciamento. — Beppe

1 0

DPA norvegese blocca trattamento di Meta
by Stefano Quintarelli July 19, 2023

July 19, 2023

The Norwegian Data Protection Authority imposes a ban on Meta carrying out behavioural advertising based on the surveillance and profiling of users in Norway. The ban will initially apply until October … In December last year, the Irish Data Protection Commission issued a decision on behalf of all data protection authorities across the EEA which established that Meta has conducted illegal behavioural advertising. Since then, Meta has made certain changes, but a fresh decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union (curia.europa.eu) has stated that Meta’s behavioural advertising still does not comply with the law. Therefore, the Norwegian Data Protection Authority is now taking action by imposing a temporary ban. https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/news/aktuelle-nyheter-2023/temporary-ban-of-…

1 0

Il Cyber Resiliency Act dell'Unione Europea minaccia il software Open Source
by Fabio Alemagna July 18, 2023

July 18, 2023

Il 19 luglio 2019 (domani, mentre scrivo) il Parlamento Europeo voterà il CRA (Cyber Resiliency Act), che ha l'obiettivo di imporre requisiti stringenti riguardo la sicurezza del software alle entità che lo producono, di fatto stabilendo come il software va prodotto in modo da assicurarsi che abbia il minor numero possibile di vulnerabilità. Per quanto l'intento sia di per sé positivo, il testo che il parlamento si appresta a votare rischia di destabilizzare in maniera irreparabile la produzione di software Open Source in Europa. La Eclypse Foundation sta seguendo molto da vicino l'evolversi della situazione, e al seguente link si può leggere in dettaglio di quali rischi stiamo parlando: https://eclipse-foundation.blog/2023/01/15/european-cyber-resiliency-act-po… Qualche giorno fa anche Github è uscita con un comunicato: https://github.blog/2023-07-12-no-cyber-resilience-without-open-source-sust… E oggi l'azienda che produce FileZilla client e Server, per la quale io stesso lavoro, ha deciso di non fornire più il software in download, come forma di protesta. Qui il comunicato: https://filezilla-project.org/cra.php Si chiede a tutti di contattare i propri parlamentari che fanno parte della commissione ITRE affinché vengano edotti sui problemi derivanti dal corrente testo: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home/members Fabio

1 1

Re: [nexa] The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers
by Giuseppe Attardi July 18, 2023

July 18, 2023

+1 Della GDPR apprezzo il fatto che si basi sull’affermazione di diritti degli utenti, più che a imporre vincoli a chi fornisce servizi: https://www.privacypolicies.com/blog/gdpr-eight-user-rights/ Invece ho sentito Dragosh Tudorache, uno dei relatori del European AI Act, criticarla proprio per questo e ribadire che l’approccio giusto è quello dell’Act, di specificare casi vietati e imporre vincoli. A me pare sia proprio l’opposto: non dovrebbe importare dettagliare in una legge tutti ciò che è illecito (è “illecito ogni comportamento che è esplicitamente o implicitamente vietato dall’ordinamento"). Dovrebbero essere poi i guardiani dei diritti (autorità o tribunali) a intervenire per punire chi viola tali diritti. Lo stesso Tudorache ammette che ci sarà incompatibilità tra le legislazione europea, basata sul diritto civile e quella americana, basata sul diritto comune. Per evitare il conflitto, sarebbe appunto stato meglio non addentrarsi in tale tipo di legislazione. Già si è visto che l’ultima versione dell’Act si è dovuta aggiornare in fretta e furia per aggiungere dei vincoli al Generative AI, che non era contemplata nella versione di soli pochi mesi fa, fatta circolare a governi e consiglio dopo una consultazione pubblica. Al pubblico non è stato consentito pronunciarsi sulla nuova versione, tanto per dire quanto contasse. — Beppe > On 18 Jul 2023, at 04:04, <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> wrote: > > From: Carlo Blengino <blengino(a)penalistiassociati.it <mailto:blengino@penalistiassociati.it>> > To: Maurizio Borghi <maurizio.borghi(a)unito.it <mailto:maurizio.borghi@unito.it>> > Cc: Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it <mailto:daniela.tafani@unipi.it>>, > "nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>> > Subject: Re: [nexa] The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms > consumers > Message-ID: > <CAKd_52ZOiwr5y07WzU4ACXR4VFieKTy7NE=d2HXZVMQXFo=hug(a)mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAKd_52ZOiwr5y07WzU4ACXR4VFieKTy7NE=d2HXZVMQXFo=hug@mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Mi permetto solo un'osservazione rispetto al post di Maurizio, ringraziando > sempre tutti per i contributi in lista, che mi pare abbiano, tutti, una > parte di verità e tutti meritano attenzione (non ho letto cretinate!) > > Il giorno sab 15 lug 2023 alle ore 12:37 Maurizio Borghi via nexa < > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>> ha scritto: > >> >> *Infine, alcune delle interrogazioni (ad es. la n. 22) riguardano in >> maniera dettagliata la raccolta e il trattamento di dati personali, con la >> richiesta di specificare le modalità impiegate da Open AI per escludere >> l’impiego di informazioni personali come training data. Qui la FTC da’ >> chiaramente per acquisito che il trattamento di dati personali come >> training data senza consenso sia illegale. Forse una riprova del fatto che >> i tanto vituperati rilievi del Garante italiano non erano così infondati?* >> >> >> > Credo che le "informazioni personali" di cui si preoccupa la FTC al punto 22* > non siano *i "dati personali" nella amplissima accezione data dal GDPR -che > ha base nel diritto fondamentale tutto made in UE alla protezione dei dati- > ma siano solo le informazioni che consentono ex sé di identificare > direttamente (a seconda del contesto) un soggetto -nome, cognome, indirizzo > e numeri di contatto o documenti d'identità- e che sono tutelati in U.S., > se non sono resi pubblici dall'interessato stesso, sul diverso presupposto > del right to be let alone, la mitica "privacy". > Poi noi facciamo confusione ed usiamo i due termini come sinonimi, ma non è > così: sono come noto due concetti affini ma profondamente diversi. > I timori della FTC sono legati al "doxing" ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing) fattispecie a noi europei ignota (e > solo parzialmente e faticosamente tutelata dal GDPR), che invece ha grande > rilievo in U.S. (è l'incubo delle piattaforme) ove appunto non esiste un > diritto fondamentale alla protezione del dato (che infatti è usato e > sfruttato a man bassa) ma una forte sensibilità alla privacy (tema su cui > noi europei, con la riservatezza, siamo paradossalmente un po' più in > difficoltà, soprattutto nei confronti del potere statuale). > > Se così non fosse e la FTC avesse improvvisamente adottato il consenso per > il trattamento dei dati personali intesi "all'europea", avremmo risolto > tutti i problemi: non esisterebbe Google search così com'è, né > il capitalismo della sorveglianza "a la Zuboff". Nel bene e nel male, > potremmo chiudere il web, o quanto meno questo web. Con strepiti e brindisi > a seconda delle fazioni. > Escludo che l'FTC consideri illegale il training con dati personali senza > consenso, ma chiede tutela sulle "informazioni personali", che sono altro. > > In realtà i due interventi (quello del Garante e quello della FTC) hanno > poco in comune e lo spettro di competenza delle Authority non è > paragonabile, come non è paragonabile la base giuridica ed il > quadro normativo su cui agiscono. > > A chiosa pongo questa riflessione. > Ormai il GDPR è utilizzato in UE e in Italia (sic!) come una clava, per > perseguire fini anche meritori e reali ma del tutto estranei alla > protezione del dato personale. Lo usiamo per tentare di regolare il > mercato, a fini anticoncorrenziali, come grimaldello per perseguire una > insana "sovranità digitale" che non promette nulla di buono sotto il > profilo della riservatezza, e fin anche per regolare i contenuti illeciti o > sgraditi, come forma di censura alle notizie o come viatico per > diffamazioni inesistenti, in ultimo, persino nella protezione dei minori > dalle brutture del web e per regolare il porno (cfr proposta Calenda), come > se fosse l'unica legge che ci salverà sulla rete. > Non va bene, ed il rischio è che quella fondamentale normativa, di per sé > aperta e flessibile, impostata ab origine su costanti bilanciamenti di > interessi contrapposti, perda il suo senso ed il suo significato e diventi > davvero incompatibile con l'innovazione. > > Facciamo attenzione, non è un buon servizio alla comunità strumentalizzare > un diritto acerbo come la protezione del dato personale per fini estranei > ed eccentrici rispetto all'originario intento. > > CB > > > -- > *Avv. Carlo Blengino* > *Via Duchessa Jolanda n. 19,* > *10138 Torino (TO) - Italy* > *tel. +39 011 4474035* > Penalistiassociati.it <http://penalistiassociati.it/>

1 0

The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers
by Daniela Tafani July 18, 2023

July 18, 2023

The FTC is investigating whether ChatGPT harms consumers The agency’s demand for OpenAI’s documents about AI risks mark the company’s greatest U.S. regulatory threat to date By Cat Zakrzewski<https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/cat-zakrzewski/?itid=ai_top_zakrzewsk…> Updated July 13, 2023 at 10:44 a.m. EDT|Published July 13, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT The Federal Trade Commission has opened an expansive investigation into OpenAI, probing whether the maker of the popular ChatGPT bot has run afoul of consumer protection laws by putting personal reputations and data at risk. The agency this week sent the San Francisco company a 20-page demand for records about how it addresses risks related to its AI models, according to a document reviewed by The Washington Post<https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/67a7081c-c770-4f05-a39e-9d02117e50…>. The salvo represents the most potent regulatory threat to date to OpenAI’s business in the United States, as the company goes on a global charm offensive<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/09/sam-altman-openai-chat…> to shape the future of artificial intelligence policy. Analysts have called OpenAI’s ChatGPT the fastest-growing consumer app in history, and its early success set off an arms race among Silicon Valley companies<https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/the-ai-arms-race-is-on…> to roll out competing chatbots. The company’s chief executive, Sam Altman, has emerged as an influential figure in the debate over AI regulation, testifying on Capitol Hill<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/16/sam-altman-open-ai-con…>, dining with lawmakers and meeting with President Biden<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/04/white-house-ai-ceos-me…> and Vice President Harris. Big Tech was moving cautiously on AI. Then came ChatGPT.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/27/chatgpt-google-meta/?i…> But now the company faces a new test in Washington, where the FTC has issued multiple warnings<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/25/artificial-intelligenc…> that existing consumer protection laws apply to AI, even as the administration and Congress struggle to outline new regulations.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/17/congress-regulating-ai…> Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has predicted<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/21/ai-regulation-us-senat…> that new AI legislation is months away. The FTC’s demands of OpenAI are the first indication of how it intends to enforce those warnings. If the FTC finds that a company violates consumer protection laws, it can levy fines or put a business under a consent decree<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/12/mudge-twitter-ftc-cons…>, which can dictate how the company handles data. The FTC has emerged as the federal government’s top Silicon Valley cop, bringing large fines against Meta<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/07/12/ftc-votes-approve-bill…>, Amazon <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/31/amazon-alexa-ring-ftc-…> and Twitter <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/25/twitter-fine-ftc/?itid…> for alleged violations of consumer protection laws. The FTC called on OpenAI to provide detailed descriptions of all complaints it had received of its products making “false, misleading, disparaging or harmful” statements about people. The FTC is investigating whether the company engaged in unfair or deceptive practices that resulted in “reputational harm” to consumers, according to the document. The FTC also asked the company to provide records related to a security incident that the company disclosed in March when a bug in its systems allowed some users to see payment-related information, as well as some data from other users’ chat history. The FTC is probing whether the company’s data security practices violate consumer protection laws. OpenAI said in a blog post <https://openai.com/blog/march-20-chatgpt-outage> that the number of users whose data was revealed to someone else was “extremely low.” OpenAI and the FTC did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent on Thursday morning. News of the probe comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan is likely to face a combative hearing<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/12/tech-giants-racking-up-w…> Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, where Republican lawmakers are expected to analyze her enforcement record and accuse her of mismanaging <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/09/musk-ftc-house-republi…> the agency. Khan’s ambitious plans to rein in Silicon Valley have suffered key losses in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected the FTC’s attempt <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/11/microsoft-activision-f…> to block Microsoft’s $69 billion deal to buy the video game company Activision. The agency has repeatedly warned that action is coming on AI, in speeches, blog posts<https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/02/keep-your-ai-claims-check>, op-eds and news conferences. In a speech at Harvard Law School<https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Remarks-to-JOLT-4-1-2023.pdf> in April, Samuel Levine, the director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said the agency was prepared to be “nimble” in getting ahead of emerging threats. “The FTC welcomes innovation, but being innovative is not a license to be reckless,” Levine said. “We are prepared to use all our tools, including enforcement, to challenge harmful practices in this area.” The FTC also has issued several colorful blog posts about its approach to regulating AI, at times invoking popular science fiction movies to warn the industry against running afoul of the law. The agency has warned<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/25/artificial-intelligenc…> against AI scams, using generative AI to manipulate potential customers and falsely exaggerating the capabilities of AI products. Khan also participated in a news conference with Biden administration officials in April about the risk of AI discrimination. “There is no AI exemption to the laws on the books,” Khan said at that event. The FTC’s push faced swift pushback from the tech industry. Adam Kovacevich, the founder and CEO of the industry coalition Chamber of Commerce, said it’s clear that the FTC has oversight of data security and misrepresentation. But he said it’s unclear if the agency has the authority to “police defamation or the contents of ChatGPT’s results.” "AI is making headlines right now, and the FTC is continuing to put flashy cases over securing results,” he said. Among the information the FTC is seeking from Open AI is any research, testing or surveys that assess how well consumers understand “the accuracy or reliability of outputs” generated by its AI tools. The agency made extensive demands about records related to ways OpenAI’s products could generate disparaging statements, asking the company to provide records of the complaints people send about its chatbot making false statements. The agency’s focus on such fabrications comes after numerous high-profile reports of the chatbot producing incorrect information that could damage people’s reputations. Mark Walters, a radio talk show host in Georgia sued OpenAI for defamation, alleging the chabot made up legal claims against him. The lawsuit <https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/walters-openai-co…> alleges that ChatGPT falsely claimed that Walters, the host of “Armed American Radio,” was accused of defrauding and embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation. The response was provided in response to a question about a lawsuit about the foundation that Walters is not a party to, according to the complaint. ChatGPT also said that a lawyer had made sexually suggestive comments and attempted to touch a student on a class trip to Alaska, citing an article that it said had appeared in The Washington Post. But no such article existed, the class trip never happened and the lawyer said he was never accused of harassing a student, The Post reported previously<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/05/chatgpt-lies/?itid=lk_…>. The FTC in its request also asked the company to provide extensive details about its products and the way it advertises them. It also demanded details about the policies and procedures that OpenAI takes before it releases any new product to the public, including a list of times that OpenAI held back a large language model because of safety risks. The agency also demanded a detailed description of the data that OpenAI uses to train its products, which mimic humanlike speech by ingesting text, mostly scraped from Wikipedia, Scribd and other sites across the open web. The agency also asked OpenAI to describe how it refines its models to address their tendency to “hallucinate,” making up answers <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/30/ai-chatbots-chatgpt-ba…> when the models don’t know the answer to a question. OpenAI also has to turn over details about how many people were affected by the March security incident and information about all the steps it took to respond. The FTC’s records request, which is called a Civil Investigative Demand, primarily focuses on potential consumer protection abuses, but it also asks OpenAI to provide some details about how it licenses its models to other companies. Europe moves ahead on AI regulation, challenging tech giants’ power<https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/14/eu-parliament-approves…> The United States has trailed other governments in drafting AI legislation and regulating the privacy risks associated with the technology. Countries within the European Union have taken steps to limit U.S. companies’ chatbots under the bloc’s privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation. Italy temporarily blocked<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/31/italy-ban-chatgpt-artificia…> ChatGPT from operating there due to data privacy concerns, and Google had to postpone the launch of its chatbot Bard after receiving requests for privacy assessments from the Irish Data Protection Commission. The European Union is also expected to pass AI legislation by the end of the year. There is a flurry of activity in Washington to catch up. On Tuesday, Schumer hosted an all-senator briefing with officials from the Pentagon and intelligence community to discuss the national security risks of artificial intelligence, as he works with a bipartisan group of senators to craft new AI legislation. Schumer told reporters after the session that it’s going to be “very hard” to regulate AI, as lawmakers try to balance the need for innovation with ensuring there are proper safeguards on the technology. On Wednesday, Vice President Harris hosted a group of consumer protection advocates and civil liberties leaders at the White House for a discussion on the safety and security risks of AI. “It is a false choice to suggest that we either can advance innovation or we protect consumers,” Harris said. “We can do both.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam…

8 29