- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?

by Antonio

> Si tratta di Potere Cibernetico. > Si tratta di poter imporre la propria volontà a individui, gruppi e persino nazioni intere. Se parli di un futuro, più o meno lontano, ti posso dare ragione. Oggi credo non sia così. Oggi a condizionare fortemente la volontà delle persone è un potere mediatico (controllato da quello finanziario) estremamente potente come mai nella storia. Nel passato abbiamo avuto la stampa, il cinema, la radio, la televisione, ieri Internet, oggi TUTTO insieme nelle mani di pochissime persone. L'Italia è al 41esimo posto e gli Stati Uniti al 45esimo nel global score della libertà di stampa [1]. I social sono stati (uso il passato perché anche loro stanno cambiando) un mezzo potentissimo in mano a quei gruppi. Anche per l'intelligenza artificiale sarà la stessa cosa. Chi avrà soldi da investire per imporre, per ora direi condizionare fortemente, la volontà, lo farà, senza tante remore. Nei sogni utopistici di (noi) pionieri, Internet doveva essere la risposta popolare, della cittadinanza attiva, allo strapotere del potere mediatico dell'epoca. Un mezzo di comunicazione (quasi) gratuito, un mezzo di espressione (quasi) gratuito, cosa chiedere di più. E' avvenuto esattamente l'opposto. Ad imporre, se non la volontà, i temi, la scaletta, i contenuti è ancora e più di ieri, la televisione. Il 90/95% delle persone ha come fonte primaria di informazione la televisione. Ieri l'ho accesa per pochi minuti, una volta di mattina, l'altra di sera, ironia della sorte, in entrambi i momenti c'era un arcivescovo che incoronava un re ed una regina ... Ho spento. In macchina ho acceso la radio, sintonizzata su una emittente locale. Poche frasi mi hanno ricondotto alla dura e triste realtà. "Mi pagano tre euro l'ora e devo lavorare 12 ore al giorno per mantenere me e mia figlia". Per un attimo ho avuto l'impressione di essere nel 1823 e non nel 2023. Una buona domenica, Antonio [1] https://rsf.org/en/index?year=2023

May 7, 2023

Re: [nexa] Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?

by Giacomo Tesio

Personalmente concordo con gran parte di questa analisi, ma colgo un difetto di fondo. Continua a considerare il problema in termini esclusivamente economici, noveventeschi. Si tratta di una cornice interpretativa gravemente insufficiente ad affrontare il cambio di paradigma in corso. (non a caso, non è quella usata internamente dalle BigTech) Non si tratta più solo di equità nella distribuzione dei profitti (tant'è che molti miliardari dell'ITC si dicono favorevoli ad ull'Universal Basic Income). Si tratta di Potere Cibernetico. Si tratta di poter imporre la propria volontà a individui, gruppi e persino nazioni intere. Vi propongo un esperimento mentale: vi offro letteralmente qualsiasi cifra possiate desiderare in cambio di poter decidere tutto ciò che da lì in poi farete o direte. Accettate? È quasi quello che stanno facendo le BigTech ma con una differenza: i servizi ad alto valore (economico) aggiunto che forniscono sottocosto (spesso gratis) in cambio di poter decidere (probabilisticamente) cosa facciamo, sono al contempo le catene con cui ci vincolano. Mai nella storia umana gli schiavi erano stati contenti di indossare le catene. Ma le catene sono sempre state gratis, per gli schiavi. Giacomo Il 6 Maggio 2023 08:28:13 UTC, Federico Guerrini via nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: >Ciao, mi sono imbattuto in questo articolo del New Yorker che, secondo >me, meriterebbe di essere copi-incollato tutto;non necessariamente >perché sia d'accordo con tutto quello che dice, ma perché è >sicuramente thought provoking (il titolo nella subject line è mio, >quello del pezzo è leggermente diverso). > >Qualche estratto: >"Just to be clear, when I refer to capitalism, I’m not talking >about the exchange of goods or services for prices determined by a >market, which is a property of many economic systems. When I refer to >capitalism, I’m talking about a specific relationship between >capital and labor, in which private individuals who have money are >able to profit off the effort of others. So, in the context of this >discussion, whenever I criticize capitalism, I’m not criticizing >the idea of selling things; I’m criticizing the idea that people >who have lots of money get to wield power over people who actually >work. And, more specifically, I’m criticizing the ever-growing >concentration of wealth among an ever-smaller number of people, which >may or may not be an intrinsic property of capitalism but which >absolutely characterizes capitalism as it is practiced today. As it is > currently deployed, A.I. often amounts to an effort to analyze a task > that human beings perform and figure out a way to replace the human >being. Coincidentally, this is exactly the type of problem that >management wants solved. As a result, A.I. assists capital at the >expense of labor. There isn’t really anything like a >labor-consulting firm that furthers the interests of workers. Is it >possible for A.I. to take on that role? Can A.I. do anything to >assist workers instead of management? > >Some might say that it’s not the job of A.I. to oppose capitalism. >That may be true, but it’s not the job of A.I. to strengthen >capitalism, either. Yet that is what it currently does. If we cannot >come up with ways for A.I. to reduce the concentration of wealth, >then I’d say it’s hard to argue that A.I. is a neutral >technology, let alone a beneficial one." >-------- >"By building A.I. to do jobs previously performed by people, A.I. >researchers are increasing the concentration of wealth to such extreme >levels that the only way to avoid societal collapse is for the >government to step in. Intentionally or not, this is very similar to >voting for Trump with the goal of bringing about a better world. And >the rise of Trump illustrates the risks of pursuing accelerationism as >a strategy: things can get very bad, and stay very bad for a long >time, before they get better. In fact, you have no idea of how long it >will take for things to get better; all you can be sure of is that >there will be significant pain and suffering in the short and medium >term.I’m not very convinced by claims that A.I. poses a danger to >humanity because it might develop goals of its own and prevent us from >turning it off. However, I do think that A.I. is dangerous inasmuch as >it increases the power of capitalism. The doomsday scenario is not a >manufacturing A.I. transforming the entire planet into paper clips, as >one famous thought experiment has imagined. It’s A.I.-supercharged >corporations destroying the environment and the working class in their >pursuit of shareholder value. Capitalism is the machine that will do >whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off, and the most >successful weapon in its arsenal has been its campaign to prevent us >from considering any alternatives.People who criticize new >technologies are sometimes called Luddites, but it’s helpful to >clarify what the Luddites actually wanted. The main thing they were >protesting was the fact that their wages were falling at the same time >that factory owners’ profits were increasing, along with food >prices. They were also protesting unsafe working conditions, the use >of child labor, and the sale of shoddy goods that discredited the >entire textile industry. The Luddites did not indiscriminately destroy >machines; if a machine’s owner paid his workers well, they left it >alone. The Luddites were not anti-technology; what they wanted was >economic justice. They destroyed machinery as a way to get factory >owners’ attention. The fact that the word “Luddite” is now used >as an insult, a way of calling someone irrational and ignorant, is a >result of a smear campaign by the forces of capital.Whenever anyone >accuses anyone else of being a Luddite, it’s worth asking, is the >person being accused actually against technology? Or are they in favor >of economic justice? And is the person making the accusation actually >in favor of improving people’s lives? Or are they just trying to >increase the private accumulation of capital?" >https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/will-ai… >Ciao, >Federico

May 7, 2023

Consapevolezza emergente

by Daniela Tafani

ANTHONY TRUPIA VS. SAM ALTMAN ET AL - Cause of Action: FRAUD "Defendants, allegedly running a “Non-Profit” entity for “the benefit of all humanity,” have perpetrated a massive fraud on donors, beneficiaries, and the public at large, and have exposed “all of humanity,” their supposed beneficiaries, to massive unprecedented risks for personal gain. Defendants have used deceptive advertising, unfair competition, and fraud to build an extraordinarily valuable resource to use for personal gain at the exclusion of purported beneficiaries. It also appears likely defendants have already used this technology illegally in violation of federal law. There are a number of pressing and concerning issues with the operation of OpenAI, Inc." Queste le prime righe del Complaint (319 pagine). Qui tutti i documenti: https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC23606176&SessionID=A4D9…

May 6, 2023

Re: [nexa] Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?

by J.C. DE MARTIN

grazie! jc (messaggio spedito in movimento - scusate brevità ed eventuali refusi) > Il giorno 6 mag 2023, alle ore 10:35, Federico Guerrini via nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > > > Ciao, mi sono imbattuto in questo articolo del New Yorker che, secondo me, meriterebbe di essere copi-incollato tutto; > non necessariamente perché sia d'accordo con tutto quello che dice, ma perché è sicuramente thought provoking (il titolo nella subject line è mio, quello del pezzo è leggermente diverso). > > Qualche estratto: > > "Just to be clear, when I refer to capitalism, I’m not talking about the exchange of goods or services for prices determined by a market, which is a property of many economic systems. When I refer to capitalism, I’m talking about a specific relationship between capital and labor, in which private individuals who have money are able to profit off the effort of others. So, in the context of this discussion, whenever I criticize capitalism, I’m not criticizing the idea of selling things; I’m criticizing the idea that people who have lots of money get to wield power over people who actually work. And, more specifically, I’m criticizing the ever-growing concentration of wealth among an ever-smaller number of people, which may or may not be an intrinsic property of capitalism but which absolutely characterizes capitalism as it is practiced today. As it is currently deployed, A.I. often amounts to an effort to analyze a task that human beings perform and figure out a way to replace the human being. Coincidentally, this is exactly the type of problem that management wants solved. As a result, A.I. assists capital at the expense of labor. There isn’t really anything like a labor-consulting firm that furthers the interests of workers. Is it possible for A.I. to take on that role? Can A.I. do anything to assist workers instead of management? > > Some might say that it’s not the job of A.I. to oppose capitalism. That may be true, but it’s not the job of A.I. to strengthen capitalism, either. Yet that is what it currently does. If we cannot come up with ways for A.I. to reduce the concentration of wealth, then I’d say it’s hard to argue that A.I. is a neutral technology, let alone a beneficial one." > > -------- > > "By building A.I. to do jobs previously performed by people, A.I. researchers are increasing the concentration of wealth to such extreme levels that the only way to avoid societal collapse is for the government to step in. Intentionally or not, this is very similar to voting for Trump with the goal of bringing about a better world. > And the rise of Trump illustrates the risks of pursuing accelerationism as a strategy: things can get very bad, and stay very bad for a long time, before they get better. In fact, you have no idea of how long it will take for things to get better; all you can be sure of is that there will be significant pain and suffering in the short and medium term. > I’m not very convinced by claims that A.I. poses a danger to humanity because it might develop goals of its own and prevent us from turning it off. However, I do think that A.I. is dangerous inasmuch as it increases the power of capitalism. The doomsday scenario is not a manufacturing A.I. transforming the entire planet into paper clips, as one famous thought experiment has imagined. It’s A.I.-supercharged corporations destroying the environment and the working class in their pursuit of shareholder value. Capitalism is the machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off, and the most successful weapon in its arsenal has been its campaign to prevent us from considering any alternatives. > People who criticize new technologies are sometimes called Luddites, but it’s helpful to clarify what the Luddites actually wanted. The main thing they were protesting was the fact that their wages were falling at the same time that factory owners’ profits were increasing, along with food prices. They were also protesting unsafe working conditions, the use of child labor, and the sale of shoddy goods that discredited the entire textile industry. The Luddites did not indiscriminately destroy machines; if a machine’s owner paid his workers well, they left it alone. The Luddites were not anti-technology; what they wanted was economic justice. They destroyed machinery as a way to get factory owners’ attention. The fact that the word “Luddite” is now used as an insult, a way of calling someone irrational and ignorant, is a result of a smear campaign by the forces of capital. > Whenever anyone accuses anyone else of being a Luddite, it’s worth asking, is the person being accused actually against technology? Or are they in favor of economic justice? And is the person making the accusation actually in favor of improving people’s lives? Or are they just trying to increase the private accumulation of capital?" > > https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/will-ai… > > Ciao, > > Federico > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 6, 2023

Re: [nexa] Leaked Internal Google Document Claims Open Source AI Will Outcompete Google and OpenAI

by Antonio

> https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither "Browsing through the models that people are creating in the image generation space, there is a vast outpouring of creativity, from anime generators to HDR landscapes. These models are used and created by people who are deeply immersed in their particular subgenre, lending a depth of knowledge and empathy we cannot hope to match. Paradoxically, the one clear winner in all of this is Meta. Because the leaked model was theirs, they have effectively garnered an entire planet's worth of free labor. Since most open source innovation is happening on top of their architecture, there is nothing stopping them from directly incorporating it into their products. The value of owning the ecosystem cannot be overstated. Google itself has successfully used this paradigm in its open source offerings, like Chrome and Android. By owning the platform where innovation happens, Google cements itself as a thought leader and direction-setter, earning the ability to shape the narrative on ideas that are larger than itself." Ma tu guarda, non l'avrei minimamente pensato. Questi dell'open source sono "creativi", "empatici" e "competenti" e noi non ne stiamo ANCORA approfittando? A.

May 6, 2023

Is AI just 'Capital's Willing Executioner'?

by Federico Guerrini

Ciao, mi sono imbattuto in questo articolo del New Yorker che, secondo me, meriterebbe di essere copi-incollato tutto;non necessariamente perché sia d'accordo con tutto quello che dice, ma perché è sicuramente thought provoking (il titolo nella subject line è mio, quello del pezzo è leggermente diverso). Qualche estratto: "Just to be clear, when I refer to capitalism, I’m not talking about the exchange of goods or services for prices determined by a market, which is a property of many economic systems. When I refer to capitalism, I’m talking about a specific relationship between capital and labor, in which private individuals who have money are able to profit off the effort of others. So, in the context of this discussion, whenever I criticize capitalism, I’m not criticizing the idea of selling things; I’m criticizing the idea that people who have lots of money get to wield power over people who actually work. And, more specifically, I’m criticizing the ever-growing concentration of wealth among an ever-smaller number of people, which may or may not be an intrinsic property of capitalism but which absolutely characterizes capitalism as it is practiced today. As it is currently deployed, A.I. often amounts to an effort to analyze a task that human beings perform and figure out a way to replace the human being. Coincidentally, this is exactly the type of problem that management wants solved. As a result, A.I. assists capital at the expense of labor. There isn’t really anything like a labor-consulting firm that furthers the interests of workers. Is it possible for A.I. to take on that role? Can A.I. do anything to assist workers instead of management? Some might say that it’s not the job of A.I. to oppose capitalism. That may be true, but it’s not the job of A.I. to strengthen capitalism, either. Yet that is what it currently does. If we cannot come up with ways for A.I. to reduce the concentration of wealth, then I’d say it’s hard to argue that A.I. is a neutral technology, let alone a beneficial one." -------- "By building A.I. to do jobs previously performed by people, A.I. researchers are increasing the concentration of wealth to such extreme levels that the only way to avoid societal collapse is for the government to step in. Intentionally or not, this is very similar to voting for Trump with the goal of bringing about a better world. And the rise of Trump illustrates the risks of pursuing accelerationism as a strategy: things can get very bad, and stay very bad for a long time, before they get better. In fact, you have no idea of how long it will take for things to get better; all you can be sure of is that there will be significant pain and suffering in the short and medium term.I’m not very convinced by claims that A.I. poses a danger to humanity because it might develop goals of its own and prevent us from turning it off. However, I do think that A.I. is dangerous inasmuch as it increases the power of capitalism. The doomsday scenario is not a manufacturing A.I. transforming the entire planet into paper clips, as one famous thought experiment has imagined. It’s A.I.-supercharged corporations destroying the environment and the working class in their pursuit of shareholder value. Capitalism is the machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off, and the most successful weapon in its arsenal has been its campaign to prevent us from considering any alternatives.People who criticize new technologies are sometimes called Luddites, but it’s helpful to clarify what the Luddites actually wanted. The main thing they were protesting was the fact that their wages were falling at the same time that factory owners’ profits were increasing, along with food prices. They were also protesting unsafe working conditions, the use of child labor, and the sale of shoddy goods that discredited the entire textile industry. The Luddites did not indiscriminately destroy machines; if a machine’s owner paid his workers well, they left it alone. The Luddites were not anti-technology; what they wanted was economic justice. They destroyed machinery as a way to get factory owners’ attention. The fact that the word “Luddite” is now used as an insult, a way of calling someone irrational and ignorant, is a result of a smear campaign by the forces of capital.Whenever anyone accuses anyone else of being a Luddite, it’s worth asking, is the person being accused actually against technology? Or are they in favor of economic justice? And is the person making the accusation actually in favor of improving people’s lives? Or are they just trying to increase the private accumulation of capital?" https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/will-ai… Ciao, Federico

May 6, 2023

Paris Marx, "Don't listen to the 'godfather of AI'"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Don't listen to the 'godfather of AI'** */Geoffrey Hinton is using fantasies to distract us from the real harms of AI// / Paris Marx May 5, 2023 The media’s been captivated this week by the story of Geoffrey Hinton, the supposed “godfather of AI” who left Google to speak more freely about the supposed threat he sees artificial intelligence posing to humanity — and which he ultimately helped to advance. You can see why it’s such an attractive story, but the focus on Hinton and his framing of the problems with AI continues to distract us from the real conversations we should be having that aren’t focused on some imagined future, but on the harms these technologies are causing in the present. For Hinton, the threat of AI is a future problem. It’s not about how AI will increase the power of employers over employees <https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-ai-will-not-take-jobs-create-future…>, how it will be wielded <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/11/robodebt-five-years-…>against <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/welfare-surveillance-sys…>marginalized <https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/human-rights-ai-visa-1.4838778>communities <https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robot…>, its potential environmental <https://www.wired.com/story/the-generative-ai-search-race-has-a-dirty-secre…>impacts <https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/04/25/data-centers-…>, and other serious concerns that will affect a lot of people outside the circles of wealthy technologists and executives. Instead, Hinton’s focus is on the fantasy that AI is on the cusp of becoming more intelligent than humans, and will then have the capacity to trick and manipulate us into doing its bidding. [...] continua qui: https://www.disconnect.blog/p/dont-listen-to-the-godfather-of-ai

May 6, 2023

Leaked Internal Google Document Claims Open Source AI Will Outcompete Google and OpenAI

by Enrico Nardelli

GOOGLE "WE HAVE NO MOAT, AND NEITHER DOES OPENAI" LEAKED INTERNAL GOOGLE DOCUMENT CLAIMS OPEN SOURCE AI WILL OUTCOMPETE GOOGLE AND OPENAI _THE TEXT BELOW IS A VERY RECENT LEAKED DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS SHARED BY AN ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUAL ON A PUBLIC DISCORD SERVER WHO HAS GRANTED PERMISSION FOR ITS REPUBLICATION. IT ORIGINATES FROM A RESEARCHER WITHIN GOOGLE. WE HAVE VERIFIED ITS AUTHENTICITY. THE ONLY MODIFICATIONS ARE FORMATTING AND REMOVING LINKS TO INTERNAL WEB PAGES. THE DOCUMENT IS ONLY THE OPINION OF A GOOGLE EMPLOYEE, NOT THE ENTIRE FIRM. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN BELOW, NOR DO OTHER RESEARCHERS WE ASKED, BUT WE WILL PUBLISH OUR OPINIONS ON THIS IN A SEPARATE PIECE FOR SUBSCRIBERS. WE SIMPLY ARE A VESSEL TO SHARE THIS DOCUMENT WHICH RAISES SOME VERY INTERESTING POINTS._ https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither -- 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 ====================================================== --

May 5, 2023

The Seven Deadly Sins of AI Predictions

by Antonio Vetro'

Credo che questo articolo apparso su MIT PRESS nell'autunno del 2017, scritto da un ex direttore del laboratorio di AI del MIT (Rodney Brooks), ponga prospettive e domande ancora molto attuali sulle nostre aspettative e timori riguardo agli sviluppi dell' IA. Nonostante il fatto che ci siano stati sviluppi tecnologici e di "contesto" importanti rispetto all'anno dell'articolo. https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/10/06/241837/the-seven-deadly-sins-of… Un saluto Antonio

May 5, 2023

CONFERMA di: Primo Maggio, due proposte di riflessione su lavoro "post-digitale"

by Marco Fioretti

On Mon, May 01, 2023 07:19:41 AM +0000, Marco Fioretti wrote: > Una in Inglese, una (con un problema specifico e SERIO per l'Italia) in > Italiano: > > https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/international-workers-day-twelve > > https://stop.zona-m.net/it/2023/05/primo-maggio-ok-parliamo-di-lavoro/ > > Buona lettura, con ringraziamenti anticipati per critiche, commenti e > diffusione. Ieri e' uscito questo articolo su La Stampa: ################################################################## L’Italia stanca del lavoro: "Lo stipendio è troppo basso”. Ecco perché uno su due sta pensando di cambiare La ricerca Changes Unipol: solo il 49% di chi inizia è soddisfatto del proprio livello retributivo Link: https://www.lastampa.it/economia/2023/05/03/news/litalia_stanca_del_lavoro_… ################################################################# l'articolo intero non posso leggerlo perche' dietro paywall, ma se titolo e sottotitolo sono accurati significano a) che non si trovino lavoratori per colpa di RdC e' una BUFALA b) che meta' degli Italiani son stanchi e non ci si riconoscono piu' NON del lavoro, ma di un ALTRO articolo, anche se non se ne rendono conto ovvero, confermano in pieno i miei ultimi tre post qui, ruolo di digitale e innovazione inclusi: https://stop.zona-m/net/it Marco -- La mia newsletter su tutto questo e molto altro: https://mfioretti.substack.com

May 4, 2023