- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] ChatGPT e la stanza cinese

by 380°

Buongiorno, grazie per i riferimenti! Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> writes: [...] > Smonta l'AI hype, passo per passo, Emily Bender: > <https://nitter.snopyta.org/emilymbender/status/1640920936600997889> /smontare/ passo per passo è molto hacker, l'unica cosa seria che si può fare... con *tutto* dei tweet citati sopra sottolineo: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Next paragraph. Human-competitive at general tasks, eh? What does footnote 3 reference? The speculative fiction novella known as the "Sparks paper" ([1], n.d.r.) and OpenAI's non-technical ad copy for GPT4 ([2], n.d.r.). --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Forse che i profeti della intelligenza artificiale generale (stocastica) se la cantano e se la suonano? un saluto, 380° [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 [2] https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf -- 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>.

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

by Stefano Zacchiroli

Aspetto che trovo insopportabile di questa lettera: il claim (falso) "Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks" è supportato bibliograficamente da ricerca svolta da investitori in OpenAI (e non peer reviewed). Quindi la lettera che si auto promuove come "contro", contribuisce in realtà ad alimentare lo hype dei prodotti che vorrebbe rallentare. Come astroturfing abbiamo visto di meglio... On March 29, 2023 8:47:53 AM GMT+02:00, "J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: >Primi firmatari: Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak. > >jc* > >Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter** >* >/We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. >/ > >https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ > >// > >AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research^[1] and acknowledged by top AI labs.^[2] As stated in the widely-endorsed Asilomar AI Principles <https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/ai-principles/>, /Advanced AI could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources/. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control. > >Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks,^[3] and we must ask ourselves: /Should/ we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? /Should/ we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? /Should/ we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? /Should/ we risk loss of control of our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders. *Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.* This confidence must be well justified and increase with the magnitude of a system's potential effects. OpenAI's recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence <https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond>, states that /"At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models."/ We agree. That point is now. > >Therefore, *we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4*. This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium. > >AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts. These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.^[4] This does /not/ mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities. > >AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. > >In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems. These should at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated to AI; oversight and tracking of highly capable AI systems and large pools of computational capability; provenance and watermarking systems to help distinguish real from synthetic and to track model leaks; a robust auditing and certification ecosystem; liability for AI-caused harm; robust public funding for technical AI safety research; and well-resourced institutions for coping with the dramatic economic and political disruptions (especially to democracy) that AI will cause. > >Humanity can enjoy a flourishing future with AI. Having succeeded in creating powerful AI systems, we can now enjoy an "AI summer" in which we reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt. Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.^[5] We can do so here. Let's enjoy a long AI summer, not rush unprepared into a fall. > -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse my brevity and top-posting.

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

by Diego Giorio

Sono l'unico ad essere pessimista sull'effettiva possibilità di fermare/sospendere la corsa all'AI? Buona giornata D. ________________________________ From: nexa <nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> on behalf of J.C. DE MARTIN <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 7:09 AM To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Subject: Re: [nexa] Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter Alcuni commenti di Emily M. Bender (Univ. of Washington): https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1640920936600997889?s=61&t=47Wex2-4… jc On 29/03/23 08:47, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: Primi firmatari: Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak. jc Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research[1] and acknowledged by top AI labs.[2] As stated in the widely-endorsed Asilomar AI Principles<https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/ai-principles/>, Advanced AI could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control. Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks,[3] and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders. Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable. This confidence must be well justified and increase with the magnitude of a system's potential effects. OpenAI's recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence<https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond>, states that "At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." We agree. That point is now. Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium. AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts. These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.[4] This does not mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities. AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems. These should at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated to AI; oversight and tracking of highly capable AI systems and large pools of computational capability; provenance and watermarking systems to help distinguish real from synthetic and to track model leaks; a robust auditing and certification ecosystem; liability for AI-caused harm; robust public funding for technical AI safety research; and well-resourced institutions for coping with the dramatic economic and political disruptions (especially to democracy) that AI will cause. Humanity can enjoy a flourishing future with AI. Having succeeded in creating powerful AI systems, we can now enjoy an "AI summer" in which we reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt. Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.[5] We can do so here. Let's enjoy a long AI summer, not rush unprepared into a fall. _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] [OT] Re: riflessioni su SALAMI e dintorni (era: ChatGPT e la stanza cinese)

by D. Davide Lamanna

On 3/28/23 17:51, 380° wrote: > Buongiorno, > > Stefano Quintarelli <stefano(a)quintarelli.it> writes: > >> sto vedendo una startup che usa NLP in uno spreadsheet. > oh mamma mi vengono i brividi: già i fogli di calcolo sono > **pericolosi** da soli, messi assieme a NLP diventano /automaticamente/ > "Weapons of Math Destruction"! :-O > >> "Dammi il prodotto dei due numeri maggior di questa lista" >> "prendi tutte le date in questa lista e convertile in anno mese >> giorno" > ma non si fa prima a scrivere una funzioncina in un linguaggio di > programmazione (ad alto livello) /a caso/ (usando qualche libreria, > magari)? Forse. Ma il mondo va in un'altra direzione. Del resto lo sviluppo dei linguaggi di programmazione è proceduto - e procede - per astrazioni successive, che partono dal linguaggio macchina, faticoso da gestire per un umano (tempi di sviluppo lunghissimi), e procedono verso linguaggi ad alto o ad altissimo livello, creati per differenti scopi. Obiettivi comuni di questa evoluzione, mi pare, siano quelli di (i) rendere progressivamente più piacevole/adatto (per l'umano) e (ii) efficace per il particolare scopo (e dunque per la macchina in astratto) il compimento di azioni di computazione. Se ora i linguaggi sono praticati da macchine, che li compongono su indicazione umana, potrebbe succedere che in futuro i nuovi linguaggi - e le nuove versioni dei linguaggi esistenti - virino verso l'adattamento alla macchina, piuttosto che verso l'adattamento all'umano. Potrebbe quindi cominciare una evoluzione di segno diverso per il processo di astrazione così come lo conosciamo oggi. Nel tempo questo potrebbe estremizzare la perdita di conoscenza degli strati inferiori di astrazione e il controllo sulla direzioni politiche della tecnologia. D. (null)

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Alcuni commenti di Emily M. Bender (Univ. of Washington): https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1640920936600997889?s=61&t=47Wex2-4… jc On 29/03/23 08:47, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > Primi firmatari: Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak. > > jc* > > Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter** > * > /We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the > training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. > / > > https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ > > AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks > to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research^[1] and > acknowledged by top AI labs.^[2] As stated in the widely-endorsed > Asilomar AI Principles > <https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/ai-principles/>, /Advanced AI > could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and > should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and > resources/. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is > not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in > an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful > digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, > predict, or reliably control. > > Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general > tasks,^[3] and we must ask ourselves: /Should/ we let machines flood > our information channels with propaganda and untruth? /Should/ we > automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? /Should/ we > develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, > outsmart, obsolete and replace us? /Should/ we risk loss of control of > our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected > tech leaders. *Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we > are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will > be manageable.* This confidence must be well justified and increase > with the magnitude of a system's potential effects. OpenAI's recent > statement regarding artificial general intelligence > <https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond>, states that > /"At some point, it may be important to get independent review before > starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to > agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new > models."/ We agree. That point is now. > > Therefore, *we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 > months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4*. This > pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If > such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and > institute a moratorium. > > AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly > develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI > design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by > independent outside experts. These protocols should ensure that > systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.^[4] This > does /not/ mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a > stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable > black-box models with emergent capabilities. > > AI research and development should be refocused on making today's > powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, > transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. > > In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically > accelerate development of robust AI governance systems. These should > at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated > to AI; oversight and tracking of highly capable AI systems and large > pools of computational capability; provenance and watermarking systems > to help distinguish real from synthetic and to track model leaks; a > robust auditing and certification ecosystem; liability for AI-caused > harm; robust public funding for technical AI safety research; and > well-resourced institutions for coping with the dramatic economic and > political disruptions (especially to democracy) that AI will cause. > > Humanity can enjoy a flourishing future with AI. Having succeeded in > creating powerful AI systems, we can now enjoy an "AI summer" in which > we reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of > all, and give society a chance to adapt. Society has hit pause on > other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on > society.^[5] We can do so here. Let's enjoy a long AI summer, not > rush unprepared into a fall. > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

March 29, 2023

Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Primi firmatari: Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak. jc* Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter** * /We call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. / https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ // AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research^[1] and acknowledged by top AI labs.^[2] As stated in the widely-endorsed Asilomar AI Principles <https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/ai-principles/>, /Advanced AI could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources/. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control. Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks,^[3] and we must ask ourselves: /Should/ we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? /Should/ we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? /Should/ we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? /Should/ we risk loss of control of our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders. *Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.* This confidence must be well justified and increase with the magnitude of a system's potential effects. OpenAI's recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence <https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond>, states that /"At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models."/ We agree. That point is now. Therefore, *we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4*. This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium. AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts. These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.^[4] This does /not/ mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities. AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems. These should at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated to AI; oversight and tracking of highly capable AI systems and large pools of computational capability; provenance and watermarking systems to help distinguish real from synthetic and to track model leaks; a robust auditing and certification ecosystem; liability for AI-caused harm; robust public funding for technical AI safety research; and well-resourced institutions for coping with the dramatic economic and political disruptions (especially to democracy) that AI will cause. Humanity can enjoy a flourishing future with AI. Having succeeded in creating powerful AI systems, we can now enjoy an "AI summer" in which we reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt. Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society.^[5] We can do so here. Let's enjoy a long AI summer, not rush unprepared into a fall.

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] ChatGPT e la stanza cinese

by Daniela Tafani

Buongiorno. Il 28/03/2023 17:07, 380° ha scritto: qualcuno sostiene che ChatGPT è intelligenza artificiale generale (akaforte)? :-) Per semplificarci il compito di rispondere, hanno firmato tutti insieme una lettera aperta <https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/> sottoscrivendo la tesi che "Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks" e indicando, quale fonte di rischio, i "powerful AI systems", anziché le compagnie che li producono. Smonta l'AI hype, passo per passo, Emily Bender: <https://nitter.snopyta.org/emilymbender/status/1640920936600997889> Un saluto, Daniela

March 29, 2023

Nuova proposta di legge nel Congresso USA

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Credo che valga la pena leggere questa proposta di legge per capire in che direzione sta andando (o quantomeno rischia di andare) quella parte del mondo, noi inclusi, che ama considerarsi libera per quanto riguarda il digitale. jc 118TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 686 To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain trans- actions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 7, 2023 Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. ROMNEY, and Mrs. CAPITO) intro- duced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Com- mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act’’ or the ‘‘RESTRICT Act’’. Vedere: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s686/BILLS-118s686is.pdf

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] Criti-hype di Harari

by alvise

Buongiorno, il contributo sostanzioso di Maria Chiara / Weizenbaum mi permette di commentare, senza dilungarmi, quanto diceva Beppe e, così, anche rispondere, almeno in parte, a Damiano. Beppe, riprendendo Harari, scriveva Il giorno lun 27 mar 2023 alle ore 10:48 Giuseppe Attardi < attardi(a)di.unipi.it> ha scritto: > > "the new A.I. capacities will again be used to gain profit and power, even > if it inadvertently destroys the foundations of our society.” > > Corretto, ma quali siano le situazioni in cui verranno impiegati dipenderà > dai fini di coloro che le usano, che NON sono l'AI stessa, ma sono > banalissime aziende tecnologiche votate al profitto, guidate da banalissime > persone umane. > Il problem siamo NOI umani e non la tecnologia. > > > Queste due righe di Beppe mettono in atto tre mosse - riduzione, astrazione, generalizzazione - a mio parere esiziali per un confronto produttivo sui temi discussi in questa lista. Cioè: Beppe inizialmente dice che il problema non è l'AI, ma "banalissime aziende tecnologiche votate al profitto, guidate da banalissime persone umane", individuando degli attori complessi come può essere una organizzazione come una azienda dove si intersecano vari tipi di esseri, tra cui anche oggetti tecnici e corpi umani equipaggiati con altri oggetti tecnici e manager che sono altrettanto attori complessi costituiti da documenti, assistenti di vario genere, oggetti tecnici, ecc. E fin qui tutto bene. Poi però arrivano le tre mosse di cui dicevo e riduce la complessità accennata in precedenza a due entità astratte e generali: "NOI umani" e "la tecnologia". Allora, per rispondere a Damiano, un passettino avanti lo si può fare se la si smette di pensare in termini di queste categorie astratte, riduttive e generalizzanti. L'invito è dunque a pensare che siamo sempre, e lo siamo sempre stati, esseri umani equipaggiati da vari tipi di "tecnologie". Dunque la questione non è "esseri umani e tecnologia" o "esseri umani vs tecnologia" o altre declinazioni possibili dell'accoppiata, ma capire come un dato aggregato eterogeneo (*assemblage*, *agencement *nella letteratura delle scienze sociali oggigiorno) o vari aggregati eterogenei vengono riarticolati e ricombinati, ridistribuendone le competenze (o possibilità di azione), dall'entrata in gioco di un diverso e nuovo aggregato eterogeneo, e quanto i precedenti aggregati eterogenei perdurino nonostante l'arrivo di nuovi aggregati eterogenei - che mi sembra sia quanto più chiaramente diceva Weizenbaum / Maria Chiara riguardo la questione delle competenze o possibilità d'azione Faccio presente che non si può avere idea di cosa sia un profitto senza la "partita doppia", che è a suo modo una "tecnologia" ciao alvise

March 29, 2023

Re: [nexa] Criti-hype di Harari

by Maria Chiara Pievatolo

On 27/03/23 10:48, Giuseppe Attardi wrote: > "the new A.I. capacities will again be used to gain profit and power, > even if it inadvertently destroys the foundations of our society.” > > Corretto, ma quali siano le situazioni in cui verranno impiegati > dipenderà dai fini di coloro che le usano, che NON sono l'AI stessa, ma > sono banalissime aziende tecnologiche votate al profitto, guidate da > banalissime persone umane. > Il problem siamo NOI umani e non la tecnologia. > > La tecnologia viene antropizzata, affidandole capacità di volere ("AI is > seizing the master key”), penoso per un filosofo fare questo tipo di > confusione: > > “[AI] can now hack and manipulate the operating system of civilization. ." > Credo che Harari, disciplinarmente, si presenti come storico e non come studioso di filosofia, per quel che conta. Sul rapporto fra le tecnologia e gli esseri umani forse vale però ancora la pena citare qualcuno che conosceva ciò di cui parlava, Joseph Weizenbaum, che in "Computer Power and Human Reason", ch. I pp. 37-38 (1976) scriveva: "Similarly, a highway permits people to travel between the geographical centers it connects, but, because of the side effects that it and other factors synergistically engender, it imprisons poor people in inner cities as effectively as if the cities were walled in. The mass-communication media are sometimes said to have reduced the earth to a global village and to have enabled national and even global town meetings. But, in contrast to the traditional New England town meeting which was—and remains so in my home town—an exercise in participatory politics, the mass media permit essentially no talking back. Like highways and automobiles, ***they enable the society to articulate entirely new forms of social action, but at the same time they irreversibly disable formerly available modes of social behavior***." Come le autostrade i computer, proseguiva Weizenbaum, fanno qualcosa di simile. Introducono nuove possibilità, e allo stesso tempo ne escludono altre: "a computing system that permits the asking of only certain kinds of questions, that accepts only certain kinds of "data," and that cannot even in principle be understood by those who rely on it, such a computing system has effectively closed many doors that were open before it was installed." Questo, naturalmente, non implica che la tecnologia prenda decisioni e le si possa imputare una responsabilità morale. Implica, però, che esseri finiti che fanno scelte tecnologiche o subiscono quelle altrui, in un mondo finito, producono ambienti che incorporano in sé delle decisioni e delle linee di condotta, creando e distruggendo possibilità d'azione. Idealmente, il problema siamo noi umani e le nostre scelte. Pragmaticamente, però, in quanto le scelte passate determinano strutture e infrastrutture, per chi viene dopo il problema è anche la tecnologia "vigente" con cui si trova ad avere a che fare: una tecnologia che incorpora una sua politica, talvolta perfino contro la volontà consapevole di chi l'ha progettata e messa in atto - come ebbe a rendersi conto lo stesso Weizenbaum con la sua ELIZA. Stando così le cose, forse non è ozioso chiedersi: - quali possibilità d'azione offrono in più i SALAMI? - a chi lo offrono? - quali possibilità invece precludono? - a chi le precludono? - chi e perché è interessato a usarle e a farle usare? - le conseguenze che la loro adozione produce sono (facilmente) reversibili o no? ...e così via. Daniela Tafani ha tenuto, su questo tema, un seminario per "Etica digitale" del quale non so se sia già accessibile la registrazione, in cui ha preso le mosse da un articolo solo di poco posteriore al libro di Weizenbaum: https://cedi.umd.edu/inst-466-do-artifacts-have-politics/ che discute una serie di esempi di tecnologie con politiche incorporate. Alcuni sono ovvi - quali la bomba atomica -, altri meno. Buona lettura, MCP

March 28, 2023