- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] AI systems? unlawful by default

by Enrico Nardelli

Grazie Maurizio, ricostruire l’evoluzione delle linee di pensiero è fondamentale per capire bene le questioni. -- sent from mobile, please forgive typos and conciseness =================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Univ. Roma Tor Vergata =================== > Il giorno 13 dic 2023, alle ore 14:49, maurizio lana <maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it> ha scritto: > > > Il 13/12/23 14:05, Enrico Nardelli <nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> ha scritto: >> /This paper proposes a system of “unlawfulness by default” for AI systems, an ex-ante model where some AI developers have the burden of proof to demonstrate that their technology is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, and not illegitimate in its legal bases and purposes/ >> >> https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/2022/06/01/brussels-privacy-hub-working-pape… >> >> Con un grazie a Daniela Tafani che me l'ha fatto scoprire in una sua recente presentazione > questo paper del maggio 2022 è probabilmente una prima fase di riflessioni che hanno poi dato luogo a > Malgieri, Gianclaudio, e Frank Pasquale. «Licensing High-Risk Artificial Intelligence: Toward Ex Ante Justification for a Disruptive Technology». Computer Law & Security Review 52 (aprile 2024): 105899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105899. > > anche questo, se non ricordo male, segnalato qui in lista da Daniela Tafani > Maurizio > > PS: non è pignoleria documentale, ma il senso di ricostruire i percorsi degli sviluppi di pensiero, per sottrarsi almeno un po' all'inevitabile sensazione serendipica (almeno per me) che le cose interessanti si trovano qua e là basta che uno guardi con attenzione. > che è pure vero, ma questo rende difficile cogliere delle linee di sviluppo > >> >> Ciao, Enrico > > > a questo punto devo fare una confessione: > come il mio amico Erri De Luca, sono un europeista estremista. > Questo significa che, per me, l’Europa unita è l’unica utopia politica > ragionevole che noi europei abbiamo coniato. > xavier cercas, inaugurazione del salone del libro, torino 2018 > Maurizio Lana > Università del Piemonte Orientale > Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici > Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Dec. 13, 2023

Re: [nexa] Twenge, "Yes, it’s the phones (and social media)"

by Stefano Zacchiroli

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:54:00PM +0100, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > *Jean M. Twenge > Oct 18, 2023 > */https://jeanmtwenge.substack.com/p/yes-its-the-phones-and-social-media Per chi si diverte al gioco "trova le 10 differenze", si può provare a comparare questo pezzo con quest'altro di qualche mese fa: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/honestly-its-probably-the-phones (con tutti i limiti dello stile argomentativo di Noah Smith...) -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . https://upsilon.cc/zack _. ^ ._ Full professor of Computer Science o o o \/|V|\/ Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris o o o </> <\> Co-founder & CTO Software Heritage o o o o /\|^|/\ https://twitter.com/zacchiro . https://mastodon.xyz/@zacchiro '" V "'

Dec. 13, 2023

Twenge, "Yes, it’s the phones (and social media)"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

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

Dec. 13, 2023

Re: [nexa] AI systems? unlawful by default

by maurizio lana

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

Dec. 13, 2023

AI systems? unlawful by default

by Enrico Nardelli

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

Dec. 13, 2023

Google’s Epic Legal Defeat Threatens $200 Billion App Store Industry

by Daniela Tafani

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

Dec. 12, 2023

MEMENTO | 167° Mercoledì di Nexa | 13 dicembre 2023, ore 17.00

by Valeria Bergantino

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi ricordiamo che *mercoledì 13 dicembre*, alle ore 17.00, si terrà il *167° Mercoledì di Nexa* con un incontro dal titolo /*"Internet fatta a pezzi. Sovranità digitale, nazionalismi e big tech"*/. Ospiti dell'incontro: *Vittorio Bertola* (Open-Xchange) e *Stefano Quintarelli *(UN/CEFACT)/*.*/ _L'incontro si terrà IN PRESENZA e ONLINE._ _SEDE FISICA_ dell'incontro: Centro Nexa su Internet e Società, Politecnico di Torino, Via Boggio 65/a, Torino (1° piano). Per accedere alla sala si raccomanda di suonare al citofono *Portineria* e di seguire le indicazioni segnalate lungo il percorso. QUI <https://nexa.polito.it/contatti> maggiori informazioni su come raggiungerci. _STANZA VIRTUALE_ dell'incontro: https://didattica.polito.it/VClass/NexaEvent Maggiori informazioni alla pagina: https://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-167 Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Officer Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ <https://nexa.polito.it/> mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it <mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

Dec. 11, 2023

ChatGPT entusiasta dell'AI Act

by Guido Vetere

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

Dec. 10, 2023

Intelligenza artificiale: trovato accordo - via alla regolamentazione

by Mauro Alovisio

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

Dec. 9, 2023

Re: [nexa] Attivissimo: Il video dimostrativo di Google Gemini è un falso

by Giacomo Tesio

La reazione dei vari sacerdoti della AI alla rivelazione però è molto indicativa: ``` "I can't stop thinking about the implications of this demo," tweeted TED organizer Chris Anderson on Thursday. "Surely it's not crazy to think that sometime next year, a fledgling Gemini 2.0 could attend a board meeting, read the briefing docs, look at the slides, listen to every one's words, and make intelligent contributions to the issues debated? Now tell me. Wouldn't that count as AGI?" ``` D'altro canto, ai molti sotto sorveglianza arriveranno solo le lodi delle magnifiche sortive e progressive: la consapevolezza delle menzogne e delle manipolazioni diffuse da queste società verrà riservata a pochi strambi paranoici. E forse ai rassegnati, a quelli che "tanto non c'è nulla da fare". Giacomo Il 9 Dicembre 2023 08:30:02 UTC, Alberto Cammozzo via nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > <https://attivissimo.blogspot.com/2023/12/il-video-dimostrativo-di-google-ge…> > > Questo video promozionale di Google per presentare la propria nuova intelligenza artificiale, denominata /Gemini/, è un falso: Gemini non è affatto in grado di fare le cose mostrate qui. > > <https://www.youtube.com/embed/UIZAiXYceBI> > > Lo spiega in dettaglio Matteo Flora in questo video, supportato dalle dichiarazioni <https://developers.googleblog.com/2023/12/how-its-made-gemini-multimodal-pr…> fatte da Google stessa nei propri blog. > > <https://www.youtube.com/embed/rI0X6be5zC4> > > Specialmente per i chatbot, questa faccenda dell’IA comincia a puzzare sempre più di speculazione. > > /Fonti aggiuntive: > Ars Technica <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/google-admits-it-fud…>, <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/google-admits-it-fud…> > Gizmodo <https://gizmodo.com/google-gemini-ai-hands-on-demo-1851084170>. <https://gizmodo.com/google-gemini-ai-hands-on-demo-1851084170> > /

Dec. 9, 2023