- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
by Roberto Dolci June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

L’approccio filosofico e’ corretto, e tra l’altro il test di Cartesio e’ valido ancora oggi, ma forse serve un occhiata alle neuroscienze per capire il punto descritto sotto per Watson. Oggi i modelli piu’ sofisticati di AI arrivano a 16 milioni di neuroni, che son quello che ognuno di noi ha gia’ solo nella corteccia cerebrale, cui se ne aggiungono altri 70-80 a spasso per la scatola cranica, quindi non c’e’ paragone. La rana ha 16m di neuroni, come la miglior AI, che quindi e’ tontolona se paragonata a noi. Watson non da problemi nel riconoscimento di fratture, nei o altri dati da cui si ricavi l’anomalia come delta rispetto ad una norma, perche’ con la classificazione del dataset bene o male te la cavi. Ma lo stesso Watson rischia di prescriverti una chirurgia toracica per quello che risolvi con un maloox, perche’ non puo’ minimamente “coordinare” le tante variabili da prendere in considerazione durante una diagnosi, che oltre a richiedere classificazione e’ anche processo ricorsivo con forte interazione con il paziente (non a caso fare il veterinario o il pediatra e’ ben piu’ difficile). Qui sul processo di diagnosi: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338593/ From: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> On Behalf Of Federico Guerrini Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:27 AM To: Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: [nexa] Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized Ciao, vi segnalo quest'interessante paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0494-4 che adotta un approccio filosofico alla questione e prova a confutare l'idea, diffusa fra l'altro da Harari su Homo Deus, che il libero arbitrio sia solo una questione di stimoli biochimici. Computers are not in our world. I have earlier said that neural networks need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge. However, it is simply not true, as some of theadvocates of Big Data argue, that the data“speak for themselves”.Normally, the data used are related to one or more models, they are selected by humans, and in the end they consist of numbers. If we think, for example like Harari, that the world is“at thebottom”governed by algorithms, then we will have a tendency to overestimate the power of AI and underestimate human accom-plishments. The expression“nothing but”that appears in thequotation from Harari may lead to a serious oversimplification inthe description of human and social phenomena. I think this is atleast a part of the explanation of the failure of both IBM WatsonHealth and Alphabet’s DeepMind.“IBM has encountered a fundamental mismatch between the way machines learn and theway doctors work”(Strickland,2019) and DeepMind has dis-covered that“what works for Go may not work for the challen-ging problems that DeepMind aspires to solve with AI, like cancer and clean energy”(Marcus,2019).The over estimation of the power of AI may also have detrimental effects on science. In their frequently quoted bookTheSecond Machine AgeErik Brynjolfson and Andrew McAfee argue that digitization can help us to understand the past. They refer toa project that analyzed more thanfive million books published inEnglish since 1800. Some of the results from the project was that“the number of words in English has increased by more than 70%between 1950 and 2000, that fame now comes to people more quickly than in the past but also fades faster, and that in the 20th century interest in evolution was declining until Watson andCrick discovered the structure of DNA.”This allegedly leads to“better understanding and prediction—in other words, of better science—via digitization”(Brynjolfson and McAfee,2014, p. 69).In my opinion it is rather an illustration of Karl Popper’s insight:“Too many dollars may chase too few ideas”(Popper,1981,p. 96).My conclusion is very simple: Hubert Dreyfus’argumentsagainst general AI are still valid. -- https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fellowships/journalist-fellows/p… www.onthebrink.it<http://www.onthebrink.it>

1 0

Re: [nexa] [AVVISO] mailing list offline per 24/48 ore
by Giovanni Garifo June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

L'intervento è ultimato e la mailing list è nuovamente online. Buona giornata, -- Giovanni Garifo IT Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino w. nexa.polito.it/people/ggarifo l. linkedin.com/in/giovannigarifo On 30/06/2020 10:02, Giovanni Garifo wrote: > Cari iscritti alla mailing list, > > vi scrivo per informarvi che nelle prossime 24/48 ore la mailing list > non sarà raggiungibile a causa di un intervento tecnico. > > Seguirà comunicazione appena la mailing list tornerà online. > > > Buona giornata

1 0

Digital platforms and the (re)organization of solidarity
by don Luca Peyron June 30, 2020

June 30, 2020

Considerazioni e buone prassi per chi è interessato al tema dl https://platformlabor.net/blog/digital-platforms-and-the-reorganization-of-… _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Lettera alla ministra Azzolina del Prof. Angelo Raffaele Meo e domanda della Prof.ssa Maria Chiara Pievatolo in Senato
by Giacomo Tesio June 27, 2020

June 27, 2020

Salve, segnalo a chi non ne fosse già informato che la Senatrice Maria Laura Mantovani (M5S) ha riportato presso il Senato della Repubblica alcuni passaggi della recente lettera alla Ministra Azzolina del Professor Meo [1] e della domanda posta qui ed altrove dalla Professoressa Maria Chiara Pievatolo [2] Qui https://www.youtube.com/embed/VwxSVl_HT4k potete trovare la registrazione dell'intervento della Senatrice. Giacomo [1] https://scuolalibera.continuity.space/lettera-professor-meo [2] https://www.roars.it/online/teledidattica-proprietaria-e-privata-o-libera-e…

2 2

Facebook policy changes fail to quell advertiser revolt as Coca-Cola pulls ads | Technology | The Guardian
by Alberto Cammozzo June 27, 2020

June 27, 2020

<phttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/26/facebook-policies-hate-…> Company follows Unilever’s lead after platform announces shift in how it handles hate speech More than 100 companies have committed to hit pause on ad spending on Facebook for July 2020. Facebook has announced changes to its policies around hate speech and voter suppression, but the measures have done little to quell the wave of companies pulling advertising from the platform amid backlash over how the company handles hate speech online. The CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, on Friday announced tweaks to a number of policies, hours after the multinational Unilever said it would pull its advertisements from the platform for the next six months. Zuckerberg’s announcements, however, did not halt companies’ demands for change. On Friday afternoon, Coca-Cola, Honda, the chocolate brand Hershey, and the apparel companies Lululemon and Jansport joined the more than 100 brands boycotting advertising on Facebook. Facebook makes about 98% of its $70bn in annual revenue from advertising, and Unilever’s announcement sent Facebook stocks tumbling 7%. Unilever’s joining of the boycott put significant pressure on Facebook, said Nicole Perrin, the principal analyst at the market research firm eMarketer. As one of the largest advertisers in the world, its moves could influence other brand advertisers to follow its lead, she said. It also pulled spending for longer than other companies and on more platforms, including Instagram and Twitter. “That suggests a deeper problem with user-generated content platforms, as divisiveness is to be expected on any such platform that allows political expression,” she said. The changes announced Friday are the most significant Facebook has made after months of actions from employees and legislators, yet critics argue they are still too incremental. Facebook said it would take an approach similar to that of Twitter, labeling posts that may violate its policies but are allowed to remain on the platform because they are deemed newsworthy. The platform will also include a link to its voting information center on any post with information about voting, including by politicians: “This is not a judgement of whether the posts themselves are accurate,” Zuckerberg said. The new policies come as a reversal from Facebook’s previous stances. As recently as last week the company made clear that Facebook does not consider much of the language that Trump uses to suppress voting to be voter suppression, defending Trump’s posts as being “legitimate debate”. Zuckerberg also said in the video that posts that “may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote” will be removed regardless of who posts them or whether they may be considered newsworthy. “I’m optimistic that we’re going to be able to make progress on these challenges,” Zuckerberg said. “I think we’re going to be able to do that while maintaining our democratic traditions around free expression and voting, and I’m committed to making sure that Facebook is a force for good on this journey.” The pressure on Facebook to moderate hate speech has accelerated in recent weeks as the platform refused to flag false and incendiary statements from Donald Trump, despite moves from rival platform Twitter to do so. In response, workers staged a walkout and called on the company to do more to address hate speech and incitement to violence. How much the new policies will change the landscape of Facebook remains to be seen, said representatives of Change the Terms, a coalition of over 55 civil rights groups committed to fighting online hate. “Today at Facebook, the collective voice of diverse users won against the threats of hateful politicians and white supremacists, but we need more enforcement—not words that remain unfulfilled,” said Jessica J González, the co-founder of Change the Terms and co-CEO of Free Press. Change the Terms cited the existence of more than 100 white supremacist Facebook accounts that are still active on the platform. Others noted that Donald Trump’s post about shooting looters during civil rights protests remains live on the site. Zuckerberg also said the company will not be changing its policies that allow lying in paid political advertisements. Rashad Robinson of the Color of Change said the CEO’s statement “was 11 minutes of wasted opportunity to commit to change”. “Zuckerberg’s new changes don’t go nearly far enough,” Robinson said on Twitter. “Labeling ‘newsworthy’ content so the public can judge for themselves is not a new policy. It’s more of the same, and it won’t cut it.”

1 0

Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam
by Giacomo Tesio June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

The plan is no gift to the masses, but a tool for our further enslavement In 2016, I was invited to Uber’s headquarters (then in San Francisco) to talk about the failings of the digital economy and what could be done about it. Silicon Valley firms are the only corporations I know that ask for private talks for free. They don’t even cover cab fare. [..] I took the gig. I figured it was my chance to let my audience know, in no uncertain terms, that Uber was among the worst offenders, destroying the existing taxi market not through creative destruction but via destructive destruction. They were using the power of their capital to undercut everyone, extract everything, and establish a scorched-earth monopoly. I went on quite a tirade. To my surprise, the audience seemed to share my concerns. They’re not idiots, and the negative effects of their operations were visible everywhere they looked. Then an employee piped up with a surprising question: “What about UBI?” [...] Uber’s business plan, like that of so many other digital unicorns, is based on extracting all the value from the markets it enters. This ultimately means squeezing employees, customers, and suppliers alike in the name of continued growth. When people eventually become too poor to continue working as drivers or paying for rides, UBI supplies the required cash infusion for the business to keep operating. When it’s looked at the way a software developer would, it’s clear that UBI is really little more than a patch to a program that’s fundamentally flawed. The real purpose of digital capitalism is to extract value from the economy and deliver it to those at the top. If consumers find a way to retain some of that value for themselves, the thinking goes, you’re doing something wrong or “leaving money on the table.” [...] Walmart perfected the softer version of this model in the 20th century. Move into a town, undercut the local merchants by selling items below cost, and put everyone else out of business. Then, as sole retailer and sole employer, set the prices and wages you want. So what if your workers have to go on welfare and food stamps. Now, digital companies are accomplishing the same thing, only faster and more completely. [...] Of course, it all comes at a price: Digital monopolists drain all their markets at once and more completely than their analog predecessors. Soon, consumers simply can’t consume enough to keep the revenues flowing in. Even the prospect of stockpiling everyone’s data, like Facebook or Google do, begins to lose its allure if none of the people behind the data have any money to spend. To the rescue comes UBI. [...] Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence. Continua su https://medium.com/s/free-money/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-l… (o http://web.archive.org/web/20200626141758/https://telegra.ph/mediumcom-Univ…) Purtroppo la conclusione del ragionamento non si porta molto lontano dal modello americano, limitandosi a suggerire la condivisione con i lavoratori di un 10% delle azioni. Un idea che sembra ricevere una certa spinta propagandistica negli USA in questo momento: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/opinion/corporate-profit-sharing-inequal… Ma se non affidi il 100% delle azioni ai lavoratori, superata la crisi etica del momento, le puoi togliere. Servono alternative più drastiche, efficaci e definitive. Giacomo

1 0

Fwd: magnum gaudium
by Angelo Raffaele Meo June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

-------- Messaggio Inoltrato -------- Oggetto: magnum gaudium Data: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 15:45:08 +0200 Mittente: Angelo Raffaele Meo <meo(a)polito.it> A: comunita(a)comeinclasse.it MAGNUM GAUDIUM NUNTIO VOBIS IN ALLEGATO

3 2

CLICKING THE TRAFFIC AWAY
by don Luca Peyron June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Moscow’s Traffic Control Center and the performative mythology of congestion management reveals cultural narratives of the city as a real-time digital model, and calls for alternative literacies of model-making and urban simulation. Buona lettura dl https://strelkamag.com/en/article/clicking-the-traffic-away _________________________ www.universitari.to.it via XX settembre 83, Torino tel. 011 5156239

1 0

Legge Avia francese disinnescata in un mese dalla corte costituzionale.
by Giovanni Biscuolo June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Buongiorno, non mi pare sia passata in lista, anche se credo che molti di voi già lo sappiano vista la portata della decisione. Ci hanno messo circa UN MESE ad emettere la sentenza... più o meno come quella sul Porcellum (8 anni) in Italia >:-( https://www.eff.org/press/releases/victory-french-high-court-rules-most-hat… «Victory! French High Court Rules That Most of Hate Speech Bill Would Undermine Free Expression» by Karen Gullo, 19 Jun 2020 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Paris, France—In a victory for the free speech rights of French citizens, France’s highest court today struck down core provisions of a bill meant to curb hate speech, holding they would unconstitutionally sweep up legal speech. The decision comes as some governments across the globe, in seeking to stop hateful, violent, and extremist speech online, are considering overbroad measures that would silence legitimate speech. The French Supreme Court said the bill’s requirements—that online posts, comments, photos, and other content deemed hateful by potential plaintiffs must be taken down within 24 hours of being reported—would encourage social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, in their haste to avoid hefty fines, to remove perfectly legal speech. The provisions “infringe on freedom of speech, and are not necessary, appropriate and proportionate,” the court said. It also rejected a provision that required speech related to terrorism and child pornography be removed within an hour of being flagged. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Nadine Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita at New York Law School, and the French American Bar Association (FABA) urged the court in a brief submitted earlier this month to reject the bill. [...] For the decision: https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2020/2020801DC.htm --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Ne parla anche Guido Scorza nel suo blog sul Fattoquotidiano Title: Feed: Guido Scorza – Il Fatto Quotidiano https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/06/23/odio-online-la-meravigliosa-lez… «Odio online, la meravigliosa lezione della Consulta francese sulla libertà di espressione» Guido Scorza, 23 Jun 2020 --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] A meno di un mese dalla sua approvazione, nei giorni scorsi, è arrivata la decisione della Corte Costituzionale francese: le disposizioni che rappresentano l’anima della legge sono incostituzionali. Le undici pagine della sentenza meritano di essere lette tutte d’un fiato. Sono una meravigliosa lezione su come neppure il perseguimento degli obiettivi più nobili può giustificare il rischio di comprimere la libertà di parola online. Il filo rosso – neppure tanto sottile – che attraversa l’intera decisione è questo: chiedere a Facebook, Google, Twitter e agli altri giganti del web di cancellare contenuti pubblicati dagli utenti entro un’ora o – cambia poco – entro 24 ore significa accettare il rischio che questi ultimi, a scopo cautelativo, per sottrarsi al rischio di una sanzione, rimuovano anche contenuti che meriterebbero di restare online perché semplice e legittimo interesse della libertà di parola. [...] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Saluti, Giovanni -- Giovanni Biscuolo

2 1

Gli italiani, il web e i dati: focus sulle paure digitali
by Giacomo Tesio June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020

Statistiche interessanti da: https://www.accademiaitalianaprivacy.it/dettaglioNews.asp?id=381 Nel corso dell'evento online "Data Vision & Data Value" sono stati presentati i risultati della ricerca "Focus sulle paure digitali" dell'Osservatorio Europeo sulla Sicurezza Demos&Pi - Fondazione Unipolis. Il sondaggio ha registrato convinzioni, timori e sensazioni degli italiani riguardo la sicurezza dei propri dati e sul controllo degli stessi. Anzitutto, il 23% degli intervistati ha dichiarato di essere costantemente connesso, mentre 1 italiano su 3 non accede mai al web. Uno dei dati più salienti è che ben 1 intervistato su 2 considera non al sicuro i dati che ha memorizzati sui propri dispositivi. L'e-commerce pare infondere fiducia: il 68% degli intervistati ritiene che utilizzare il proprio account di banking online oppure la propria carta di credito su siti di e-commerce sia sicuro e al riparo da brutte sorprese. Controllo sociale Riguardo invece la percezione di controllo sociale tramite raccolta dati, la tendenza si inverte: su questo tema il 62% degli intervistati dimostra timore, ritenendo che il Governo o comunque una qualche autorità giudiziaria tenga sotto controllo almeno una parte delle attività in rete. Larga parte però ritiene che sia un giusto prezzo da pagare in nome della sicurezza: il 49% ritiene questi controlli sulle attività online come una garanzia per i cittadini, il 28% invece dichiara che tali controllo mettono a rischio la privacy. Meno positivo il giudizio rispetto al tracciamento online delle attività a fini commerciali: su questo tema si ritiene che l'azione delle aziende sia molto pervasiva, per alcuni inaccettabile. Il 74% degli intervistati ritiene che almeno una parte del proprio traffico sia monitorato da aziende pubblicitarie, compagnie tecnologiche o aziende e privati di altro tipo. Un numero molto rilevante, il 43% ritiene che tutti i contenuti che inviamo o ai quali accediamo navigando in rete siano controllati da questi attori. In questo caso, contrariamente al controllo da parte del Governo, ben il 59% dichiara che questo sia un rischio per la privacy. Cybersicurezza In termini di cyber security gli italiani sembrano molto preoccupati: il 48% ha forti timori riguardo la propria sicurezza nel web sentendosi "poco" o "per nulla" al sicuro. Sono sopratutto i più anziani ad avere paura del web: più del 50% della fascia compresa tra i 45 e 64 anni ritiene la propria sicurezza a rischio nella sfera digitale. Chi ha gradi di istruzione medio-alta , oltre a presentare il più alto utilizzo di Internet, si sente più insicuro nel web. Dal punto di vista delle categorie professionali, i maggiori timori rispetto alla sicurezza digitale si riscontrano in quelle categorie che ricorrono alla rete non solo nella vita privata, ma anche in quella lavorativa: i livelli più elevati di timori si riscontrano tra lavoratori automoni e imprenditori (55%), liberi professionisti (51%) e tra tecnici, impiegati, dirigenti e funzionari (50%). Finalità di utilizzo Per quanto riguarda l'uso che gli italiani fanno della rete, la principale ragione di utilizzo (64% degli intervistati) è quella di rimanere in contatto con altre persone tramite social o app di messaggistica. Il 69% degli intervistati ha dichiarato invece che il web è stata la principale fonte di informazione durante la pandemia Covid. Chi resta escluso dalla rete? Come detto, più di un terzo della popolazione italiana in età adulta non accede ancora al web: tra le persone disconnesse troviamo principalmente donne (32%), soggetti con basso livello di istruzione (76%), pensionati (52%).

1 0