- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] "A new look at the economics of AI"

by Enrico Nardelli

Grazie Juan-Carlos. "The new paper" a cui l'articolo fa riferimento è “The Simple Macroeconomics of AI,” pubblicata su "Economic Policy" nell'agosto 2024 https://academic.oup.com/economicpolicy/article/40/121/13/7728473 , ma uscita già come preprint nel maggio dello stesso anno. Il paragrafo conclusivo mi sembra molto ma molto esplicito su quale sia la situazione attuale e i problemi da risolvere (grassetto mio). My assessment is that there are indeed much bigger gains to be had from generative AI, which is a promising technology, but these gains will remain elusive unless there is a fundamental reorientation of the industry, including perhaps a *major change in the architecture of the most common generative AI models*, such as the LLMs, in order to *focus on reliable information that can increase the marginal productivity of different kinds of worker*s, rather than prioritizing the development of general human-like conversational tools. The *general-purpose nature of the current approach to generative AI could be ill-suited for providing such reliable information*. To put it simply, it remains an open question whether we need foundation models (or the current kind of LLMs) that can engage in human-like conversations and write Shakespearean sonnets if what we want is reliable information useful for educators, healthcare professionals, electricians, plumbers and other skilled workers. Ciao, Enrico Il 08/02/2025 08:33, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-new-look-economics-ai > > "Estimating that only about 5% of tasks will be able to be profitably > performed by AI within that time frame, the GDP boost would likely be > closer to 1% over that period, Acemoglu suggests. This is a > “nontrivial, but modest effect, and certainly much less than both the > revolutionary changes some are predicting and the less hyperbolic but > still substantial improvements forecast by Goldman Sachs and the > McKinsey Global Institute,” he writes." > > Opps. > > jc > -- -- EN https://www.hoepli.it/libro/la-rivoluzione-informatica/9788896069516.html ====================================================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Past President di "Informatics Europe" Direttore del Laboratorio Nazionale "Informatica e Scuola" del CINI Dipartimento di Matematica - Università di Roma "Tor Vergata" Via della Ricerca Scientifica snc - 00133 Roma home page: https://www.mat.uniroma2.it/~nardelli blog: https://link-and-think.blogspot.it/ tel: +39 06 7259.4204 fax: +39 06 7259.4699 mobile: +39 335 590.2331 e-mail: nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it online meeting: https://blue.meet.garr.it/b/enr-y7f-t0q-ont ====================================================== --

Feb. 9, 2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology for manufacturing excuses

by Daniela Tafani

Anatomy of an AI Coup Eryk Salvaggio / Feb 9, 2025 DOGE is gutting federal agencies to install AI across the government. Democracy is on the line, writes Tech Policy Press fellow Eryk Salvaggio. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology for manufacturing excuses. While lacking clear definitions or tools for assessment, AI has nonetheless seized the imagination of politicians and managers across government, academia, and industry. But what AI is best at producing is justifications. If you want a labor force, a regulatory bureaucracy, or accountability to disappear, you simply say, “AI can do it.” Then, the conversation shifts from explaining why these things should or should not go away to questions about how AI would work in their place. We are in the midst of a political coup that, if successful, would forever change the nature of American government. It is not taking place in the streets. There is no martial law. It is taking place cubicle by cubicle in federal agencies and in the mundane automation of bureaucracy. The rationale is based on a productivity myth that the goal of bureaucracy is merely what it produces (services, information, governance) and can be isolated from the process through which democracy achieves those ends: debate, deliberation, and consensus. AI then becomes a tool for replacing politics. The Trump administration frames generative AI as a remedy to "government waste." However, what it seeks to automate is not paperwork but democratic decision-making. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are banking on a popular but false delusion that word prediction technologies make meaningful inferences about the world. They are using it to sidestep Congressional oversight of the budget, which is, Constitutionally, the allotment of resources to government programs through representative politics. Continua qui: <https://www.techpolicy.press/anatomy-of-an-ai-coup/>

Feb. 9, 2025

Re: [nexa] [spin-off] DVCS legislativo (was Re: I tecno-baroni vogliono rovesciare la democrazia, riformiamo i social)

by Antonio

> Tutte le norme dovrebbero essere redatte in un formato "puro testo" > (Markdown? Org-mode? Legal XML?) e archiviate in un DVCS (distributed > version control system: git?) gestito Per Benino™: in questo modo per > ciascuna norma sarebbe tracciabile ogni singola modifica (git blame...). Le norme in normattiva.it e nella pagina Github del Senato [1] sono già in XML, precisamente in Akoma Ntoso [2] E' tutto il resto che manca :( A. [1] https://github.com/SenatoDellaRepubblica/AkomaNtosoBulkData [2] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akoma_ntoso

Feb. 8, 2025

AI haters build tarpits to trap and trick AI scrapers that ignore robots.txt

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/ai-haters-build-tarpits-to-trap…> Making AI crawlers squirm Attackers explain how an anti-spam defense became an AI weapon. Last summer, Anthropic inspired backlash when its ClaudeBot AI crawler was accused of hammering websites a million or more times a day. And it wasn't the only artificial intelligence company making headlines for supposedly ignoring instructions in robots.txt files to avoid scraping web content on certain sites. Around the same time, Reddit's CEO called out all AI companies whose crawlers he said were "a pain in the ass to block," despite the tech industry otherwise agreeing to respect "no scraping" robots.txt rules. Watching the controversy unfold was a software developer whom Ars has granted anonymity to discuss his development of malware (we'll call him Aaron). Shortly after he noticed Facebook's crawler exceeding 30 million hits on his site, Aaron began plotting a new kind of attack on crawlers "clobbering" websites that he told Ars he hoped would give "teeth" to robots.txt. Building on an anti-spam cybersecurity tactic known as tarpitting, he created Nepenthes, malicious software named after a carnivorous plant that will "eat just about anything that finds its way inside." Aaron clearly warns users that Nepenthes is aggressive malware. It's not to be deployed by site owners uncomfortable with trapping AI crawlers and sending them down an "infinite maze" of static files with no exit links, where they "get stuck" and "thrash around" for months, he tells users. Once trapped, the crawlers can be fed gibberish data, aka Markov babble, which is designed to poison AI models. That's likely an appealing bonus feature for any site owners who, like Aaron, are fed up with paying for AI scraping and just want to watch AI burn. Tarpits were originally designed to waste spammers' time and resources, but creators like Aaron have now evolved the tactic into an anti-AI weapon. As of this writing, Aaron confirmed that Nepenthes can effectively trap all the major web crawlers. So far, only OpenAI's crawler has managed to escape. It's unclear how much damage tarpits or other AI attacks can ultimately do. Last May, Laxmi Korada, Microsoft's director of partner technology, published a report detailing how leading AI companies were coping with poisoning, one of the earliest AI defense tactics deployed. He noted that all companies have developed poisoning countermeasures, while OpenAI "has been quite vigilant" and excels at detecting the "first signs of data poisoning attempts." Despite these efforts, he concluded that data poisoning was "a serious threat to machine learning models." And in 2025, tarpitting represents a new threat, potentially increasing the costs of fresh data at a moment when AI companies are heavily investing and competing to innovate quickly while rarely turning significant profits. "A link to a Nepenthes location from your site will flood out valid URLs within your site's domain name, making it unlikely the crawler will access real content," a Nepenthes explainer reads. The only AI company that responded to Ars' request to comment was OpenAI, whose spokesperson confirmed that OpenAI is already working on a way to fight tarpitting. "We’re aware of efforts to disrupt AI web crawlers," OpenAI's spokesperson said. "We design our systems to be resilient while respecting robots.txt and standard web practices." But to Aaron, the fight is not about winning. Instead, it's about resisting the AI industry further decaying the Internet with tech that no one asked for, like chatbots that replace customer service agents or the rise of inaccurate AI search summaries. By releasing Nepenthes, he hopes to do as much damage as possible, perhaps spiking companies' AI training costs, dragging out training efforts, or even accelerating model collapse, with tarpits helping to delay the next wave of enshittification. "Ultimately, it's like the Internet that I grew up on and loved is long gone," Aaron told Ars. "I'm just fed up, and you know what? Let's fight back, even if it's not successful. Be indigestible. Grow spikes." Nepenthes instantly inspires another tarpit Nepenthes was released in mid-January but was instantly popularized beyond Aaron's expectations after tech journalist Cory Doctorow boosted a tech commentator, Jürgen Geuter, praising the novel AI attack method on Mastodon. Very quickly, Aaron was shocked to see engagement with Nepenthes skyrocket. "That's when I realized, 'oh this is going to be something,'" Aaron told Ars. "I'm kind of shocked by how much it's blown up." It's hard to tell how widely Nepenthes has been deployed. Site owners are discouraged from flagging when the malware has been deployed, forcing crawlers to face unknown "consequences" if they ignore robots.txt instructions. Aaron told Ars that while "a handful" of site owners have reached out and "most people are being quiet about it," his web server logs indicate that people are already deploying the tool. Likely, site owners want to protect their content, deter scraping, or mess with AI companies. When software developer and hacker Gergely Nagy, who goes by the handle "algernon" online, saw Nepenthes, he was delighted. At that time, Nagy told Ars that nearly all of his server's bandwidth was being "eaten" by AI crawlers. Already blocking scraping and attempting to poison AI models through a simpler method, Nagy took his defense method further and created his own tarpit, Iocaine. He told Ars the tarpit immediately killed off about 94 percent of bot traffic to his site, which was primarily from AI crawlers. Soon, social media discussion drove users to inquire about Iocaine deployment, including not just individuals but also organizations wanting to take stronger steps to block scraping. Iocaine takes ideas (not code) from Nepenthes, but it's more intent on using the tarpit to poison AI models. Nagy used a reverse proxy to trap crawlers in an "infinite maze of garbage" in an attempt to slowly poison their data collection as much as possible for daring to ignore robots.txt. Taking its name from "one of the deadliest poisons known to man" from The Princess Bride, Iocaine is jokingly depicted as the "deadliest poison known to AI." While there's no way of validating that claim, Nagy's motto is that the more poisoning attacks that are out there, "the merrier." He told Ars that his primary reasons for building Iocaine were to help rights holders wall off valuable content and stop AI crawlers from crawling with abandon. Tarpits aren’t perfect weapons against AI Running malware like Nepenthes can burden servers, too. Aaron likened the cost of running Nepenthes to running a cheap virtual machine on a Raspberry Pi, and Nagy said that serving crawlers Iocaine costs about the same as serving his website. But Aaron told Ars that Nepenthes wasting resources is the chief objection he's seen preventing its deployment. Critics fear that deploying Nepenthes widely will not only burden their servers but also increase the costs of powering all that AI crawling for nothing. "That seems to be what they're worried about more than anything," Aaron told Ars. "The amount of power that AI models require is already astronomical, and I'm making it worse. And my view of that is, OK, so if I do nothing, AI models, they boil the planet. If I switch this on, they boil the planet. How is that my fault?" Aaron also defends against this criticism by suggesting that a broader impact could slow down AI investment enough to possibly curb some of that energy consumption. Perhaps due to the resistance, AI companies will be pushed to seek permission first to scrape or agree to pay more content creators for training on their data. "Any time one of these crawlers pulls from my tarpit, it's resources they've consumed and will have to pay hard cash for, but, being bullshit, the money [they] have spent to get it won't be paid back by revenue," Aaron posted, explaining his tactic online. "It effectively raises their costs. And seeing how none of them have turned a profit yet, that's a big problem for them. The investor money will not continue forever without the investors getting paid." Nagy agrees that the more anti-AI attacks there are, the greater the potential is for them to have an impact. And by releasing Iocaine, Nagy showed that social media chatter about new attacks can inspire new tools within a few days. Marcus Butler, an independent software developer, similarly built his poisoning attack called Quixotic over a few days, he told Ars. Soon afterward, he received messages from others who built their own versions of his tool. Butler is not in the camp of wanting to destroy AI. He told Ars that he doesn't think "tools like Quixotic (or Nepenthes) will 'burn AI to the ground.'" Instead, he takes a more measured stance, suggesting that "these tools provide a little protection (a very little protection) against scrapers taking content and, say, reposting it or using it for training purposes." But for a certain sect of Internet users, every little bit of protection seemingly helps. Geuter linked Ars to a list of tools bent on sabotaging AI. Ultimately, he expects that tools like Nepenthes are "probably not gonna be useful in the long run" because AI companies can likely detect and drop gibberish from training data. But Nepenthes represents a sea change, Geuter told Ars, providing a useful tool for people who "feel helpless" in the face of endless scraping and showing that "the story of there being no alternative or choice is false." Criticism of tarpits as AI weapons Critics debating Nepenthes' utility on Hacker News suggested that most AI crawlers could easily avoid tarpits like Nepenthes, with one commenter describing the attack as being "very crawler 101." Aaron said that was his "favorite comment" because if tarpits are considered elementary attacks, he has "2 million lines of access log that show that Google didn't graduate." But efforts to poison AI or waste AI resources don't just mess with the tech industry. Governments globally are seeking to leverage AI to solve societal problems, and attacks on AI's resilience seemingly threaten to disrupt that progress. Nathan VanHoudnos is a senior AI security research scientist in the federally funded CERT Division of the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, which partners with academia, industry, law enforcement, and government to "improve the security and resilience of computer systems and networks." He told Ars that new threats like tarpits seem to replicate a problem that AI companies are already well aware of: "that some of the stuff that you're going to download from the Internet might not be good for you." "It sounds like these tarpit creators just mainly want to cause a little bit of trouble," VanHoudnos said. "They want to make it a little harder for these folks to get" the "better or different" data "that they're looking for." VanHoudnos co-authored a paper on "Counter AI" last August, pointing out that attackers like Aaron and Nagy are limited in how much they can mess with AI models. They may have "influence over what training data is collected but may not be able to control how the data are labeled, have access to the trained model, or have access to the Al system," the paper said. Further, AI companies are increasingly turning to the deep web for unique data, so any efforts to wall off valuable content with tarpits may be coming right when crawling on the surface web starts to slow, VanHoudnos suggested. But according to VanHoudnos, AI crawlers are also "relatively cheap," and companies may deprioritize fighting against new attacks on crawlers if "there are higher-priority assets" under attack. And tarpitting "does need to be taken seriously because it is a tool in a toolkit throughout the whole life cycle of these systems. There is no silver bullet, but this is an interesting tool in a toolkit," he said. Offering a choice to abstain from AI training Aaron told Ars that he never intended Nepenthes to be a major project but that he occasionally puts in work to fix bugs or add new features. He said he'd consider working on integrations for real-time reactions to crawlers if there was enough demand. Currently, Aaron predicts that Nepenthes might be most attractive to rights holders who want AI companies to pay to scrape their data. And many people seem enthusiastic about using it to reinforce robots.txt. But "some of the most exciting people are in the 'let it burn' category," Aaron said. These people are drawn to tools like Nepenthes as an act of rebellion against AI making the Internet less useful and enjoyable for users. Geuter told Ars that he considers Nepenthes "more of a sociopolitical statement than really a technological solution (because the problem it's trying to address isn't purely technical, it's social, political, legal, and needs way bigger levers)." To Geuter, a computer scientist who has been writing about the social, political, and structural impact of tech for two decades, AI is the "most aggressive" example of "technologies that are not done 'for us' but 'to us.'" "It feels a bit like the social contract that society and the tech sector/engineering have had (you build useful things, and we're OK with you being well-off) has been canceled from one side," Geuter said. "And that side now wants to have its toy eat the world. People feel threatened and want the threats to stop." As AI evolves, so do attacks, with one 2021 study showing that increasingly stronger data poisoning attacks, for example, were able to break data sanitization defenses. Whether these attacks can ever do meaningful destruction or not, Geuter sees tarpits as a "powerful symbol" of the resistance that Aaron and Nagy readily joined. "It's a great sign to see that people are challenging the notion that we all have to do AI now," Geuter said. "Because we don't. It's a choice. A choice that mostly benefits monopolists." Tarpit creators like Nagy will likely be watching to see if poisoning attacks continue growing in sophistication. On the Iocaine site—which, yes, is protected from scraping by Iocaine—he posted this call to action: "Let's make AI poisoning the norm. If we all do it, they won't have anything to crawl."

Feb. 8, 2025

"A new look at the economics of AI"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-new-look-economics-ai "Estimating that only about 5% of tasks will be able to be profitably performed by AI within that time frame, the GDP boost would likely be closer to 1% over that period, Acemoglu suggests. This is a “nontrivial, but modest effect, and certainly much less than both the revolutionary changes some are predicting and the less hyperbolic but still substantial improvements forecast by Goldman Sachs and the McKinsey Global Institute,” he writes." Opps. jc

Feb. 8, 2025

[spin-off] DVCS legislativo (was Re: I tecno-baroni vogliono rovesciare la democrazia, riformiamo i social)

by 380°

Buongiorno Antonio, Antonio <antonio(a)piumarossa.it> writes: [...] > 3) Tutte le modifiche alle norme dovrebbero contenere una sorta di > link alle discussioni che ne hanno determinato la "ratio legis". > > Per dire, il decreto in oggetto riportava al comma 3 dell'art.20 "Le > pubbliche amministrazioni pubblicano, altresì, i dati relativi ai > livelli di benessere organizzativo". Comma abrogato dal D.Lgs. 25 > maggio 2016, n.97. Beh, mi piacerebbe conoscere i motivi di tale > abrogazione e la discussione in Parlamento, chi l'ha votato e > perché. Il tutto, ovviamente, senza perderci una settimana di > ricerche. La soluzione c'è ma siamo ancora Troppo Indietro™ per implementarla. Tutte le norme dovrebbero essere redatte in un formato "puro testo" (Markdown? Org-mode? Legal XML?) e archiviate in un DVCS (distributed version control system: git?) gestito Per Benino™: in questo modo per ciascuna norma sarebbe tracciabile ogni singola modifica (git blame...). Ogni proposta di modifica (patch) alle norme dovrebbe essere inviata ad una specifica mailing list pubblica, gestita anche via public-inbox [1], in modo tale che possa essere discussa ed eventualmente approvata (commit): in questo modo per ciascuna modifica (patch) sarbbe tracciabile anche la sua ratio. ...vabbè dai, sognare ad occhi aperti ogni tanto è stimolante. Ciao, 380° [1] https://public-inbox.org/README.html -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

Feb. 7, 2025

Re: [nexa] I tecno-baroni vogliono rovesciare la democrazia, riformiamo i social

by Antonio

> - nel 2016 non sono stati aggiunti limiti che prima non c'erano. È stato introdotto un diritto NUOVO (il diritto di accesso cd generalizzato) che ha quei limiti che hai riportato. > Qui per maggiori dettagli: > https://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/idf/numeri/2022/speciale-3-2022/ponti… Grazie del testo Benedetto, è vero, ricordavo male. Ma il tuo saggio mi ha rinfrescato la memoria :) Così ne approfitto per delle considerazioni. 1) Un testo di legge, a maggior ragione questo che è diretto a TUTTI i cittadini, dovrebbe essere il più chiaro possibile, cosa che non è affatto. 2) Come hai scritto tu, i limiti sono estremamente generici e, quindi, di difficile e incerta applicazione (nel dubbio, facciamo che tutto è "sicurezza nazionale" e non se ne parli più) 3) Tutte le modifiche alle norme dovrebbero contenere una sorta di link alle discussioni che ne hanno determinato la "ratio legis". Per dire, il decreto in oggetto riportava al comma 3 dell'art.20 "Le pubbliche amministrazioni pubblicano, altresì, i dati relativi ai livelli di benessere organizzativo". Comma abrogato dal D.Lgs. 25 maggio 2016, n.97. Beh, mi piacerebbe conoscere i motivi di tale abrogazione e la discussione in Parlamento, chi l'ha votato e perché. Il tutto, ovviamente, senza perderci una settimana di ricerche. Chiudo con un link ad una pagina che ho fatto in pochi minuti (grazie a wdiff e un po' di html) in cui confronto la versione originaria del decreto del 2013 con la nuova del 2016 (in rosso il testo abrogato, in verde quello aggiunto). https://www.saela.eu/varie/dlgs33-2013/ A.

Feb. 6, 2025

Online PhD course in English on “Ethics and AI” by SIpEIA (April-May 2025)

by Guido Boella

Dear All, we have the pleasure to announce the third edition of the* online PhD course in English on “Ethics and AI”* organized by the Italian Society for Ethics of AI (SIpEIA <http://www.sipeia.it>) starting next April. Over 300 people registered for the previous edition in 2023! The course is open not only to PhD students but also to all interested scholars and members of the general public. In addition, it offers a certificate and an exam option for students who require them. For updates on the course, please visit this link <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=204&lang=en>. For information and registration write to* info(a)sipeia.it <info(a)sipeia.it>* *Edition 2025* *Abstract*: This interdisciplinary course intends to provide a brief overview of the main ethical issues concerning AI from an interdisciplinary perspective. The starting point is the clarification of what an “ethics” is, so as to offer the reference coordinates of the discourse, which is then articulated in the analyzes by way of examples of specific issues in the different directions. In particular, issues relating to the impact that AI has and will increasingly have on social life are examined, especially concerning the problem of biases and of generative AI; the interconnections with medicine and health care; the methods of legal regulation, such as the AI Act of the EU. *Teachers*: Maurizio Mori, Consulta di Bioetica Onlus Tiziana Catarci, DIAG, Università la Sapienza Roma Giovanni Sartor, CIRSFID, Università di Bologna Guido Boella, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino *Intended Audience:* PhD students at various stages of their programs, as well as any interested scholars and members of the general public. *Programme*: 4 hours: - Maurizio Mori: Two hours dedicated to outlining a theory of ethics capable of addressing moral analyses of human societies and larger communities. The remaining two hours apply these conceptual tools to analyze the potential interactions between AI and health care. 2 hours - Tiziana Catarci: Biases in AI 4 hours - Guido Boella: A comprehensive overview of the various ethical issues related to AI, with reflections on its societal and ethical impact. 4 hours - Giovanni Sartor: A session reflecting on the relationship between AI applications and human rights, discussing implications for data protection and consumer protection, and examining the EU’s AI Act. 2 hours - Guido Boella: Ethical aspects of LLMs (Large Language Models). *Schedule*: 2 April 2025, Wed* 11:00 *– 13:00 Guido Boella 9 April 2025, Wed *14:00 *– 16:00 Tiziana Catarci 16 April 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Giovanni Sartor 23 April 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Giovanni Sartor 30 April 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Maurizio Mori 7 May 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Maurizio Mori 14 May 2025, Wed *11:00* – 13:00 Guido Boella 21 May 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Guido Boella *Registration:* To register for the course students please fill out this brief form <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScJAn0CKu1Zrtc7s98oOqTeO1ZJE31v8g5…> . *Course costs:* For students enrolled outside Italy: *free*. For students in Italy who require a certificate of attendance and/or exam: free for those who *subscribe* to Italian Society for Ethics of AI SIpEIA <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=355&lang=en>. *Free *for non PhD students. *Subscriptions to SIpEIA <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=355&lang=en> are welcome in all cases to support our activities.* *Modality*: This online course is conducted entirely in English. Each session will be broadcast live, recorded, and subsequently published on SIpEIA's video channel <https://www.youtube.com/@sipeia5193>. Registered users will receive connection links, which will also be available on the SIpEIA course website <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=204&lang=en>. Please note that live attendance is mandatory for those wishing to take the exam—simply watching the recordings will not suffice. *Exam modality* (for those who wishing to take the exam): Submit an article (approximately 5000 characters) in either English or Italian on a topic addressing the ethical aspects or societal impact of AI, drawing on your research experience. Your piece should be accessible to a broad audience—including those without a technical background—and should engage readers with thoughtful insights and clear language. Best submissions will be featured in our *Magazine Intelligenza Artificiale* magia.news. *Prerequisites:* No prior technical or philosophical knowledge is required to attend the course. *Credits and Hours:* 16 hours of online lectures are offered, with the possibility to earn 1.5 credits (subject to the rules of each PhD programme). Best regards Guido Boella -- Dipartimento di Informatica Università di Torino Cso Svizzera 185 10149 Torino Vice-Rettore Vicario dell'Università di Torino per la promozione dei rapporti con le imprese e le associazioni di categoria delle imprese e per il coordinamento con le iniziative di innovazione industriale sul territorio Vicepresidente del Competence Center CIM4.0 www.cim40.com Visitate i siti delle nostre iniziative www.magia.news www.chedih.eu www.pai-edih.eu www.firstlife.org www.commonshood.eu www.corpusproject.eu/ <https://corpusproject.eu/> www.projectco3.eu www.sipeia.it www.ai-aware.eu nlab4cit.eu [image: CHEDIH] <http://chedih.eu/>[image: edih PAI]

Feb. 6, 2025

DeepSeek and AI in China - check out our DiPLab policy memo

by Antonio Casilli

Dear all, just wanted to share that at DiPLab, we published a policy memo (the first in a new series), looking at DeepSeek, that new Chinese AI sensation claiming to match ChatGPT at 1% of the cost. This document, co-authored with Thomas Le Bonniec (Institut Polytechnique de Paris) and Julian Posada (Yale Univesity), includes background, analysis of the documentation made accessible by the company, and policy recommendations. Take a look + would love to hear your thoughts: https://diplab.eu/diplab-releases-first-policy-memo-the-human-cost-of-deeps… Here is an excerpt : "While public discourse has centered on DeepSeek’s technical achievements, our investigation uncovers a crucial factor in its success: an extensive network of government-subsidized data labor. Chinese policy initiatives have strategically established data-annotation hubs throughout the country’s “tier 3” cities, offering substantial tax breaks and financial incentives to companies willing to maintain large workforces of data labelers. The company’s public narrative presents these workers as expert researchers, even suggesting that the CEO personally participates in data labeling activities. DeepSeek claims to operate with a mere 32 annotators—a number that raises significant questions when compared to the scale of data processing required for large language model development." Buona lettura, ---a -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Institut Polytechnique de Paris My new book: Waiting for Robots. The Hired Hands of Automation, University of Chicago Press, 2025. My new documentary: In the Belly of AI, Federation Studios, 2025. *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for the timing of this email. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not required.*

Feb. 6, 2025

Re: [nexa] I tecno-baroni vogliono rovesciare la democrazia, riformiamo i social

by Benedetto Ponti

Caro Antonio: - intendevo, ovviamente, che il limite di cui all'art. 5 bis, comma 2, lettera c), fosse l'unico pertinente, in relazione alle informazioni cui si vorrebbe fare accesso. - nel 2016 non sono stati aggiunti limiti che prima non c'erano. È stato introdotto un diritto NUOVO (il diritto di accesso cd generalizzato) che ha quei limiti che hai riportato. Qui per maggiori dettagli: https://www.regione.emilia-romagna.it/idf/numeri/2022/speciale-3-2022/ponti… Benedetto Inviato da Outlook per Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ Da: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Antonio <antonio(a)piumarossa.it> Inviato: Mercoledì, Febbraio 5, 2025 8:37:31 PM A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Oggetto: Re: [nexa] I tecno-baroni vogliono rovesciare la democrazia, riformiamo i social > L'unico limite oggettivo che mi viene in mente le università potrebbero opporre, sarebbero i profili di segreto industriali o know how connessi ai contratti di fornitura. Articolo 5-bis (Esclusioni e limiti all'accesso civico) DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 14 marzo 2013, n.33 1. L'accesso civico di cui all'articolo 5, comma 2, è rifiutato se il diniego è necessario per evitare un pregiudizio concreto alla tutela di uno degli interessi pubblici inerenti a: a) la sicurezza pubblica e l'ordine pubblico; b) la sicurezza nazionale; c) la difesa e le questioni militari; d) le relazioni internazionali; e) la politica e la stabilità finanziaria ed economica dello Stato; f) la conduzione di indagini sui reati e il loro perseguimento; g) il regolare svolgimento di attività ispettive. 2. L'accesso di cui all'articolo 5, comma 2, è altresì rifiutato se il diniego è necessario per evitare un pregiudizio concreto alla tutela di uno dei seguenti interessi privati: a) la protezione dei dati personali, in conformità con la disciplina legislativa in materia; b) la libertà e la segretezza della corrispondenza; c) gli interessi economici e commerciali di una persona fisica o giuridica, ivi compresi la proprietà intellettuale, il diritto d'autore e i segreti commerciali. 3. Il diritto di cui all'articolo 5, comma 2, è escluso nei casi di segreto di Stato e negli altri casi di divieti di accesso o divulgazione previsti dalla legge, ivi compresi i casi in cui l'accesso è subordinato dalla disciplina vigente al rispetto di specifiche condizioni, modalità o limiti, inclusi quelli di cui all'articolo 24, comma 1, della legge n. 241 del 1990. ... N.B. L'articolo 5 bis è stato aggiunto nel 2016, inizialmente e per il periodo 2013-2016 non c'erano limiti ed esclusioni. A.

Feb. 5, 2025