- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

How humans can hold the line against AI hype
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

How humans can hold the line against AI hype By Alan Boyle ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don’t call ChatGPT <https://www.geekwire.com/tag/chatgpt/> a chatbot. Call it a conversation simulator. Don’t think of DALL-E <https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/> as a creator of artistic imagery. Instead, think of it as a synthetic media extruding machine. In fact, avoid thinking that what generative AI does is actually artificial intelligence. That’s part of the prescription for countering the hype over artificial intelligence, from the authors of a new book titled “The AI Con.” <https://thecon.ai/> [...] continua qui: https://cosmiclog.com/2025/05/19/how-to-hold-the-line-against-ai-hype/

2 1

Pubblicazione report relativo al progetto "Development of Generative Artificial Intelligence from a Copyright Perspective"
by Nexa - Media May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, È con piacere che vi informiamo che è stato recentemente pubblicato un nuovo studio relativo al progetto EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) dal titolo "Development of Generative Artificial Intelligence from a Copyright Perspective". Lo studio, elaborato dal Centro Nexa su Internet & Società e dal Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell'Università di Torino, esplora gli sviluppi dell'Intelligenza Artificiale generativa alla luce della normativa europea sul diritto d'autore, evidenziando l'importanza di garantire l'accesso alle informazioni essenziali riguardo all'origine delle opere e agli usi consentiti, al fine di assicurare un'applicazione corretta, equa e trasparente della disciplina vigente. Il testo completo del report, insieme a maggiori informazioni in merito al progetto, è disponibile al seguente link: https://nexa.polito.it/development-of-generative-ai-from-copyright-perspect… Di seguito la pagina dedicata alla pubblicazione sul sito di EUIPO: https://www.euipo.europa.eu/it/publications/genai-from-a-copyright-perspect… Vi ringraziamo per l'attenzione. Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it<mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

1 0

IMPORTANTE, Aggiornamento su pratiche oscure di Copytrack, /Re: [COPYTRACK GmbH] Re: Details regarding your copyright infringment
by M. Fioretti May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Buonasera a tutti (e grazie per i consigli ricevuti finora) Riassunto: copytrack e' una compagnia tedesca che, per conto di vari clienti, manda automaticamente e arbitrariamente richieste di risarcimento per violazione di copyright a chiunque i loro software ritengano potenziale violatore, per importi senza giustificazione apparente. Ne hanno gia' parlato altri, a proposito dello stesso cliente che avrei danneggiato io (e questi sono solo alcuni dei link):: https://benjaminspider.com/understanding-federico-caputos-copytrack-claims/ https://gioxx.org/2023/12/19/copytrack-racconto-di-unazione-discutibile/ https://www.angryjerk.net/wp/2024/02/14/ajnet-vs-copytrack/ Il 30 aprile copytrack ha scritto anche a me, pretendendo quasi 400 Euro per una immagine di Caputo che piu' di cinque anni fa avrei inserito in un mio post senza autorizzazione. Dopo la mia prima richiesta di informazioni, sono immediamente scesi a 200, SENZA fornire alcuna informazione. AL momento le cose stanno come potete leggere sotto, mancano solo URL e case number. La mia posizione? 1) io non me lo ricordo proprio dove presi quell'immagine 5 anni e mezzo fa, perche' scrivo tantissimo. Ma se una volta ho effettivamente, INAVVERTITAMENTE violato il copyright di qualcuno, in maniera che gli ha EFFETTIVAMENTE causato un danno di 200 Euro, paghero' quella cifra a chi ne ha diritto... 2) ma il modo di procedere di Copytrack e Caputo e' davvero insopportabile. Di lui non ho trovato nessun contatto, ma quello e' il meno. A parte tono e procedure di copytrack, quell'immagine che mi contestano si trova su tanti altri post online (che avranno sicuramente acquistato licenza)... ma non su Shutterstock e simili. Cioe' non si trova nessuna prova, ne' tramite motori di ricerca ne' da Copytrack, che quell'immagine era effettivamente in vendita, dove e a quale prezzo. Fra l'altro, ho notato su quegli altri siti che loro hanno una versione piu' grande. Ovvero, se anche avessi copiato qualcosa senza autorizzazione, sarebbe un thumbnail, non l'immagine effettivamente in vendita. E' indecente o no? Grazie per la pazienza, per altri consigli e anche a chi volesse rappresentarmi pro-bono se mai si andasse in tribunale per questa farsa. Il rispetto del copyright e' una cosa seria, ma questa pesca a strascico di sicuro non lo e'. Sarebbe bello se gli artisti seri imparassero a star lontani da chi li "protegge" in questo modo. Marco ----- Forwarded message from Marco Fioretti ----- Subject: Re: [COPYTRACK GmbH] Re: Details regarding your copyright infringment From: Marco Fioretti Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 18:28:51 +0200 To: COPYTRACK GmbH <proof(a)copytrack.com> To whom it may concern: you write that "we can not lower the compensation in this case more". I think there is a big misunderstanding going on. Please understand that the problem is NOT the AMOUNT you now ask for compensation, that is 200 Euros. If I ACTUALLY DID cause that amount of damage to your client, I will pay it. What I asked, and still ask, is ONLY REAL, FORMAL evidence/guarantees: 1) that I did cause that amount of damage (see below), and 2) that paying 200 Euros WILL definitely close this matter, without you or Mr. Caputo ever asking anymore for further compensation, about Germany and any other country About point 1, I will be glad to pay as soon as I WILL have evidence of, besides the guarantee that this will definitely close this matter: 1. Proof of copyright ownership for the image in question, including documentation of substantial human input to justify a copyright claim. 2. Mr. Caputo’s license history. 3. The location(s) where Mr. Caput has the image you are claiming compensation for. 4. The sales history of that image. 5. The location(s) where the image is available for sale. Surely you can provide this information quickly, and I confirm that providing it will be enough, as far as I am concerned, to close this matter in the fastest and less expensive ways for all parties involved. Marco Fioretti Il giorno sab 17 mag 2025 alle ore 16:17 COPYTRACK GmbH <proof(a)copytrack.com> ha scritto: ##- Please type your reply above this line -## Your request (XXXXXX) has been updated. To add additional comments, reply to this email. Conversation CCs (if any): M. Fioretti Copytrack Z (COPYTRACK GmbH) May 17, 2025, 16:17 GMT+2 Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your message However, as I mentioned before we can not lower the compensation in this case more. Please be reminded that discounted offer will expire within the next 7 days, and then we will be forced to hand this case over to our partners, and they will take further actions. It will also lead to higher settlement costs, since the discounted offer will expire Best regards Legal Department COPYTRACK GmbH Saarbrücker Straße 18, 10405 Berlin Germany Phone: +49 - 30 – 809 33 29 10 Fax: +49 - 30 – 809 33 29 99 Registry: AG Berlin Charlottenburg HRB 173269 B Domicile: Dresdener Str. 31, 10179 Berlin CEO: Marcus Schmitt VAT-ID: DE305466114 Marco Fioretti May 12, 2025, 06:07 GMT+2 To whom it may concern: Dear sirs, please allow me to formally remind you of what I said in my first answer (for details, please see my original answer): First, I'm not even sure I did ever use the original image. Second, I can demonstrate that the "profit" of my WHOLE blog since 2020, not the single post you refer to, has been less than what you asked. Third, and most important: you are now demanding 200 Euros for settlement. Quoting myself, I confirm that "I am willing to discuss an amicable and fair solution [as long as you can] DEMONSTRATE that using a (reduced) copy of that image caused concrete damage to your client, and the AMOUNT of that damage, explaining how you came to that conclusion." In your request I see no such proofs. Besides, in order to settle this matter, please note that in order to pay any sum, I would also need FORMAL, official documentation (e.g. copy of signed contracts, signed statements from your company etc) that: 1) you do have all the authorizations from your client to bind him to any agreement we may reach, to exclude any further claims through any other agent, now or in the future 2) regardless of the amount, any payment would DEFINITELY settle this matter, with no further requests for any reason, that it would DEFINITELY settle it not just in Germany, but also in every other country Summing up, I CONFIRM that I am willing to reach an amicable and fair solution. However, regardless of the amount, I simply cannot pay any sum without the actual evidence and guarantees that I request. Waiting for them, Best Regards, Marco Fioretti Il giorno dom 11 mag 2025 alle ore 17:01 COPYTRACK GmbH < proof(a)copytrack.com> ha scritto: Copytrack Z (COPYTRACK GmbH) May 8, 2025, 16:12 GMT+2 Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your message. As we are interested in solving this matter amicably with you, our client is willing to offer you a settlement payment of 200 EUR to cover the compensation costs for your copyright infringement. This is the maximum we can offer. The reduced compensation costs can be paid securely at https:// portal.copytrack.com/ by entering your case ID XXXXXXXXXXXX. Once you have made the payment, we can close your copyright infringement case. Best of regards, Legal Department COPYTRACK GmbH Saarbrücker Straße 18, 10405 Berlin Germany Phone: +49 - 30 – 809 33 29 10 Fax: +49 - 30 – 809 33 29 99 Registry: AG Berlin Charlottenburg HRB 173269 B Domicile: Dresdener Str. 31, 10179 Berlin CEO: Marcus Schmitt VAT-ID: DE305466114 Marco Fioretti May 1, 2025, 18:32 GMT+2 (I am sending this also from my backup Gmail address, to make sure that this message comes through) To whom it may concern: I am very surprised to receive this request. I do not think I am guilty or responsible of what you are stating, and of the kind of damage you claim it caused. To begin with, I am almost sure that I only used a partial screenshot, possibly downsized at reduced resolution, because that's what I've done other times I thought some image would be a good fit for something I posted. Above all, I can guarantee you that, albeit I do welcome donations, my audience has always been so small that the profits of the WHOLE blog (currently more than 2300 posts) in the last five years have been WAY less than the amount you ask for ONE image in ONE post. In other words, assuming that it exists and could be calculated, the fraction of that profit coming from THAT specific image in ONE post would surely be much less than ONE Euro. This said, I am willing to discuss an amicable and fair solution. However, in order to do that, I have to ask you to DEMONSTRATE that using a (reduced) copy of that image caused concrete damage to your client, and the AMOUNT of that damage, explaining how you came to that conclusion. Best Regards, Marco Fioretti On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 15:35:50 PM +0000, COPYTRACK wrote: > [copytrack-] > > Sent via email to mfioretti(a)nexaima.net on April 22, 2025 > Authorization request / Unauthorized image use - Case no: XXXXXXX > Dear Marco Fioretti, > We, COPYTRACK, are writing to you on behalf of our client Federico Caputo, who > has assigned us the monitoring and protection of their licenses and image > rights. On April 17, 2025 we have been informed that Marco Fioretti is likely > using an image without permission and the client has exclusively commissioned > us with the clarification, administration of the image rights for the territory > of the Federal Republic of Germany and, if necessary, the enforcement of any > copyright infringement through our partner lawyers. Images are protected by > copyright law almost worldwide and infringements are actionable under the > respective national law. Please see the attachment below for details. > On behalf of our client, we must first determine if you have a valid license to > use the images in question in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. > If you have a valid license or any other legal justification to use these > images, please reply to this email and include proof of license purchase and/or > any other necessary information to validate the usage. > > Please note that you are obliged to provide the necessary information about the > usage of the image to allow our client and us to verify the lawfulness of such > usage. > > Please respond to this letter no later than May 2, 2025. > > If this is not the case, your use of the image material most likely constitutes > a copyright infringement within the territory of the Federal Republic of > Germany. If no settlement can be reached, we as Copytrack are directly > instructed to enforce these rights for the territory in the Federal Republic of > Germany through our German partner lawyers and, in addition, to instruct our > respective partner lawyers in other countries to examine and, if necessary, > enforce the infringement of the rights in the respective countries. You could > then be legally obligated to compensate our client for the damage caused by > this copyright infringement. > Rights Federico Caputo > holder > Image found https://stop.zona-m.net/2019/12/... > Since > > 3 steps to solving your case > > In order to resolve this case amicably with you, we request your cooperation. > Please complete the following steps to close this case: > > 1. Check > Review the evidence on this case by going to https://portal.copytrack.com > and entering CASE ID XXXXXXXXXXX > 2. Proof > Show us proof of your license by uploading it or providing any other legal > justification to use these images and if it is valid, we will close your > case immediately; > > If you do not have a valid license or any other valid justification: > > 3. Compensation / License > You now have the following 2 options: > □ Option 1: Purchase of a subsequent image license (includes past and > future use for one year after purchase). > □ Option 2: Compensation (includes the previous use and requires the > immediate deletion of the image). > > Image license (valid for 1 year from date of purchase) 389.59 € > Compensation costs (past usage) 350.00 € > Payment is due by May 21, 2025 > > Payments for both options can be made securely online at https:// > portal.copytrack.com by entering CASE ID XXXXXXXX > > We accept PayPal, credit card and bank transfer. > > We calculate these fees based on our client's license history, as well as the > duration of use and type of rights infringement. Failure to provide a proof or > pay for a valid license may result in your case being referred to our partner > attorney and significantly higher additional fees. > > To avoid further action, including legal action, provide proof of a valid > license or any other relevant information by May 2, 2025, or acquire it by > making payment in our online portal. > > Sincerely yours, > Marcus Schmitt > (CEO) > About Copytrack > > Since 2015, Copytrack has been helping creatives and brands protect their > copyrighted images. As one of the leading digital licensing and copyright > agents in the world, we have helped manage, license, and enforce over 200.000 > cases of image theft. Though most cases settle peacefully, we reserve the right > to proceed legally where necessary through our global network of partner law > firms in order to protect the intellectual property of our customers. > > Summary - Unauthorized use of the image – Case ID: xxxxx > > For the full report, visit https://portal.copytrack.com and enter this CASE-ID > XXXXX. > Rights holder Federico Caputo > Image used [7e90314ece] > https://stop.zona-m.net/2019/12/... > / > Online Since February 6, 2020 > Image license (valid for > 1 year from date of 374.50 € > purchase) > Compensation costs (past 350.00 € > usage) > Payment is due by May 21, 2025 > > > © 2025 COPYTRACK GmbH > Dresdener Strasse 31, 10179 Berlin • Trade register: Charlottenburg district > court • trade register number: HRB 173269B, Executive director: Marcus Schmitt > • VAT ID number: DE305466114 > > * . This email is a service from COPYTRACK GmbH. Delivered by Zendesk [NK5KM2-RV505] ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

"Student Makes Tool That Identifies ‘Radicals’ on Reddit, Deploys AI Bots to Engage With Them"
by J.C. DE MARTIN May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

*Student Makes Tool That Identifies ‘Radicals’ on Reddit, Deploys AI Bots to Engage With Them* /The tool scans for users writing certain keywords on Reddit and assigns those users a so-called “radical score,” before deploying an AI-powered bot to automatically engage with the users to de-radicalize them. / Joseph Cox May 19, 2025 at 9:13 AM https://www.404media.co/student-makes-tool-that-identifies-radicals-on-redd…

1 0

Re: [nexa] Qual è il senso...?
by alessandro marzocchi May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Ritorna una convinzione diffusa per la quale il "pensiero" di noi umani è altro rispetto a questo delle macchine, in altre parole noi non siamo fondati sulla statistica. Continuo ad avere dubbi. MMMM ... è la nostra "lallazione" iniziale, legata all'alimentazione dal seno: mmmmm ho fame e succhiare è la risposta. Da mmmm nasce la prima parola: mamma, pare che sia pressochè uguale in ogni lingua. mmmm ... ma-mma, l'infante riceve applausi, gratificazioni: bravo!!! Comincia a mettere in relazione mamma (parola, significante) con un volto, una persona (significato). Avviene su base materialistica, statistica ed analogamente con altre parole, con la lingua materna dei primissimi anni e così via. La scienza segue anch'essa un percorso analogo, provando e riprovando (Dante e poi Accademia del Cimento), trial and error. In breve: siamo davvero così irriducibilmente unici? Cordialmente. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) Il giorno dom 18 mag 2025 alle ore 22:40 <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 22:40:18 +0200 > From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it> > ciao Daniela, ... ... il tuo commento mostra un'impossibilità in linea > di > principio, perché nel chatbot non c'è una linea di pensiero ma un > mosaico di pezzi di altri. ... ...

3 2

Panel sovranità digitale e cybersecurity SISP 2025
by Mauro SANTANIELLO May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Care colleghe, cari colleghi, segnalo due panel della prossima conferenza della Società Italiana di Scienza Politica (SISP), che si terrà a Napoli dal 4 al 6 settembre 2025 presso l'Università Federico II, che potrebbero essere di vostro interesse. Panel 14.3 Digital Sovereignties: Governance, Security and Rights Panel 14.4 Institutionalizing Cybersecurity in the European Union: A Distinctive Approach? La descrizione completa dei panel è disponibile qui: https://www.sisp.it/convegno2025/?pagename=cms&name=sessiontracks&trackname… La deadline per l'invio di proposte di paper è il 25 maggio 2025. Cordiali saluti, Mauro Prof. Mauro Santaniello (PhD) Associate Professor in Political Science ICPC <https://www.internetpolicyresearch.eu/> Director| GIG-ARTS <https://gig-arts.eu/> Coordinator| Giganet <https://www.giga-net.org/> Secretary SWING <https://www.internetpolicyresearch.eu/swing-2025> Scientific Coordinator | UNU-CRIS <https://cris.unu.edu/people> Associate Research Fellow PRIN on Digital Sovereignty <https://www.internetpolicyresearch.eu/internet-and-communication-policy-cen…> Principal Investigator Latest publications <https://docenti.unisa.it/023694/ricerca/pubblicazioni>

1 0

Profili giuridici del neuromarketing
by Daniele Imbruglia May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Segnalo la pubblicazione dell'*Annuario 2023-2024* - *Profili giuridici del neuromarketing* <https://www.editricesapienza.it/book/10594> (Sapienza Università Editrice, Roma, 2025). La pubblicazione raccoglie i risultati della ricerca sui profili giuridici del Neuromarketing promossa da JODI <https://dei.web.uniroma1.it/ogid> e a cui hanno partecipato 20 studiosi di diverse Università italiane. Gli scritti coprono molteplici settori disciplinari, specifici campi di applicazione e singole tematiche: pratiche commerciali sleali, dati personali, intelligenza artificiale, servizi digitali, servizi finanziari, riconoscimento delle emozioni, disabilità cognitiva, social robot, teoria del contratto, protezione dei consumatori, rimedi contrattuali, educazione al consumo, discriminazione, vulnerabilità digitale. Un contributo è dedicato all’esame del codice di autocondotta della NMSBA, la più grande associazione al mondo di operatori di Neuromarketing. -- Daniele Imbruglia Professore associato di diritto privato Dipartimento di Diritto ed Economia dell’Impresa Facoltà di Economia - Sapienza Università di Roma Via del Castro Laurenziano, 9 - 00161 Roma RM https://uniroma1.academia.edu/DanieleImbruglia

1 0

122° Nexa Lunch Seminar | 28 maggio 2025, ore 13.00
by Nexa - Media May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al 122° Nexa Lunch Seminar che si terrà mercoledì 28 maggio, dalle ore 13.00 alle ore 14.00, con un incontro dal titolo: "Cracking AI Secrecy: EU Migration Law & Governance and Beyond". Ospiti dell'incontro: Deirdre Curtin (European University Institute) and Tommaso Fia (University of Tübingen). 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 Di seguito maggiori dettagli: https://nexa.polito.it/lunch-122 Cordiali saluti, -- Valeria Bergantino Communication Manager Nexa Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN Via Pier Carlo Boggio, 65/A - 10138 Torino web: https://nexa.polito.it/ mail: valeria.bergantino(a)polito.it<mailto:valeria.bergantino@polito.it> tel: 3473443585

1 0

Re: [nexa] nexa Digest, Vol 193, Issue 29
by Dario Guarascio May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Confermo l'assenza di effetti significativi dell'IA ma attenzione alla distribuzione, allego un lavoro recente dove analizziamo l'impatto occupazionale in Europa A presto Dario Il giorno lun 19 mag 2025 alle ore 10:09 <nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto: > Send nexa mailing list submissions to > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nexa-owner(a)server-nexa.polito.it > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of nexa digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, > economists claim (Daniela Tafani) > 2. Re: [Junk released by Allowed List] Qual è il senso...? > (maurizio lana) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 07:37:37 +0000 > From: Daniela Tafani <daniela.tafani(a)unipi.it> > To: "nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> > Subject: [nexa] Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages > at all, economists claim > Message-ID: <d722e75b06054ff8a300d0ca77220741(a)unipi.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, economists > claim > > 'When we look at the outcomes, it really has not moved the needle' > > Thomas Claburn > Tue 29 Apr 2025 > > Instead of depressing wages or taking jobs, generative AI chatbots like > ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini have had almost no significant wage or labor > impact so far – a finding that calls into question the huge capital > expenditures required to create and run AI models. > > In a working paper released earlier this month, > [Large Language Models, Small Labor Market Effects, < > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5219933>] > economists Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard looked at the labor market > impact of AI chatbots on 11 occupations, covering 25,000 workers and 7,000 > workplaces in Denmark in 2023 and 2024. > > Many of these occupations have been described as being vulnerable to AI: > accountants, customer support specialists, financial advisors, HR > professionals, IT support specialists, journalists, legal professionals, > marketing professionals, office clerks, software developers, and teachers. > > Yet after Humlum, assistant professor of economics at the Booth School of > Business, University of Chicago, and Vestergaard, a PhD student at the > University of Copenhagen, analyzed the data, they found the labor and wage > impact of chatbots to be minimal. > > The report should concern the tech industry, which has hyped AI's economic > potential while plowing billions into infrastructure meant to support it. > Early this year, OpenAI admitted that it loses money per query even on its > most expensive enterprise SKU, while companies like Microsoft and Amazon > are starting to pull back on their AI infrastructure spending in light of > low business adoption past a few pilots. > > The problem isn't that workers are avoiding generative AI chatbots - quite > the contrary. But they simply aren't yet equating to actual economic > benefits. > > The researchers looked at the extent to which company investment in AI has > contributed to worker adoption of AI tools, and also how chatbot adoption > affected workplace processes. > > While firm-led investment in AI boosted the adoption of AI tools — saving > time for 64 to 90 percent of users across the studied occupations — > chatbots had a mixed impact on work quality and satisfaction. > > The economists found for example that "AI chatbots have created new job > tasks for 8.4 percent of workers, including some who do not use the tools > themselves." > > In other words, AI is creating new work that cancels out some potential > time savings from using AI in the first place. > > "One very stark example that it's close to home for me is there are a lot > of teachers who now say they spend time trying to detect whether their > students are using ChatGPT to cheat on their homework," explained Humlum. > > He also observed that a lot of workers now say they're spending time > reviewing the quality of AI output or writing prompts. > > Humlum argues that can be spun negatively, as a subtraction from potential > productivity gains, or more positively, in the sense that automation tools > historically have tended to generate more demand for workers in other tasks. > > "These new job tasks create new demand for workers, which may boost their > wages, if these are more high value added tasks," he said. > > But overall, the time savings from using AI was less than expected. > According to the study, "users report average time savings of just 2.8 > percent of work hours" from using AI tools. That's a bit more than one hour > per 40 hour work week. > > The authors note that this finding differs from other randomized > controlled trials that have found productivity benefits on the order of 15 > percent. And they explain this discrepancy by saying that other studies > have focused on occupations with high AI productivity potential and that > real-world workers don't operate under the same conditions. > > "So I think there are two key reasons why the real economic gains are > lower than [the cited studies]," said Humlum, noting that his study relies > on actual tax data. > > "First, most tasks do not fall into that category where ChatGPT can just > automate everything. And then second, we're in this middle phase where > employers are still waking up to the new reality, and we're trying to > figure out how to best really realize the potential in these tools. And > just at this stage, it's just not been that much of a game changer." > > Where there are productivity gains to be had, Humlum and Vestergaard > estimate that only a small portion of that benefit – between 3 and 7 > percent – gets passed through to workers in the form of higher earnings. > > Humlum said while there are gains and time savings to be had, "there's > definitely a question of who they really accrue to. And some of it could be > the firms – we cannot directly look at firm profitability. Some of it could > also just be that you save some time on existing tasks, but you're not > really able to expand your output and therefore earn more. > > "So it's like it saves you time writing emails. But if you cannot really > take on more work or do something else that is really valuable, then that > will put a damper on how much we should actually expect those time savings > to affect your earning ability, your total hours, your wages." > > Humlum said the impact of using AI chatbots, in the form of productivity, > time savings, and work quality, can be improved through company commitment > to internal education and evangelism. He pointed in particular to how firm > initiatives can reduce the tool-usage gender gap – fewer women use these > tools than men. > > But doing so at this point doesn't show much promise of payoff. > > "In terms of economic outcomes, when we're looking at hard metrics – in > the administrative labor market data on earnings, wages – these tools have > really not made a difference so far," said Humlum. "So I think that that > puts in some sense an upper bound on what return we should expect from > these tools, at least in the short run. > > "My general conclusion is that any story that you want to tell about these > tools being very transformative, needs to contend with the fact that at > least two years after [the introduction of AI chatbots], they've not made a > difference for economic outcomes." > > < > https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/29/generative_ai_no_effect_jobs_wages/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 10:08:47 +0200 > From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana(a)uniupo.it> > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Subject: Re: [nexa] [Junk released by Allowed List] Qual è il > senso...? > Message-ID: <0f1fdf21-1d21-4858-8530-46af7e70050f(a)uniupo.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > giusto oggi nel blog cultureIA (https://cultureia.hypotheses.org/) ho > visto la notizia di questo seminario tenuto il 28 gennaio di quest'anno: > /Artificial and Post-Artificial > Writing/(https://cultureia.hypotheses.org/3159) > disponibile in youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQKBxgiRIdA) > in cui la relatrice apre con questi pensieri: > "How do we read a text when we can no longer be sure that it was not > written by an AI? > With AI permeating writing tools and producing vast amounts of text, it > may then become impossible to distinguish artificial from natural text, > but also impossible to bear this constant uncertainty. > I speculate that we may thus eventually reach a new post-artificial > situation in which the standard expectation of text is replaced by an > agnostic stance in regard to its origins. > literary text which emphasizes a stronger notion of authorship may > resist this transition longer through deliberate linguistic > experimentation or by emphasizing a human maker. > By extrapolating from the current technological situation, the talk > attempts to think through some of the possible consequences of large > language models and related technologies for interpretive situations and > hermeneutic strategies at a time when we can no longer assume that any > reasonable, complex, and coherent text was written by a human." > la trascrizione che allego è prodotta con (mac)whisper. > Maurizio > > > Il 18/05/25 22:40, maurizio lana ha scritto: > > ciao Daniela, > > la questione in gioco - distinguere il testo prodotto da un chatbot da > > quello prodotto da un umano - ne ha sullo sfondo una seconda - > > individuare le caratteristiche che distinguono la scrittura di un > > umano da quella di un altro (usualmente chiamate "stile"). la seconda > > è al cuore degli studi attribuzione con metodi quantitativi che hanno > > una lunga storia (il resoconto più ampio e valido è Grieve, Jack > > William. «Quantitative authorship attribution: A history and an > > evaluation of techniques». Thesis, Department of Linguistics - Simon > > Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/8840) e anche dei > > successi significativi. > > chi ha lavorato a studi di authorship attribution è portato in primo > > momento a pensare che se è possibile individuare le caratteristiche > > che distinguono la scrittura di un umano da quella di un altro, sia > > possibile anche individuare quelle che che distinguono la scrittura di > > un umano da quella di un chatbot. > > > > ma in effetti il tuo commento mostra un'impossibilità in linea di > > principio, perché nel chatbot non c'è una linea di pensiero ma un > > mosaico di pezzi di altri. e dunque i deboli tentativi dei software si > > collocano nell'individuazione di aspetti del tutto > > esteriori/estrinseci sui quali un ipotetico falsario testuale può > > benissimo e facilmente operare per modificarli/occultarli. > > > > peraltro vedendo già adesso circolare grandi quantità di non-testi , > > ovviamente si pensa se ci sia un modo selezionarli e distinguerli > > senza doverci spendere tempo leggendoli - che francamente si vorrebbe > > poter spendere meglio il proprio tempo > > > > e quindi mi pare che almeno come comprensibile anche se irrealizzabile > > desiderio la questione rimanga viva. > > quella per cui da un lato dobbiamo distinguere, dall'altro si vorrebbe > > fare di melgio che leggere non-testi per poter dire che sono tali. > > Maurizio > > > > Il 18/05/25 00:24, Daniela Tafani ha scritto: > >> il senso mi pare quello di qualsiasi circonvenzione di incapace. > >> A questa collaborano studiosi di ogni sorta, a pagamento e non. > >> > >> Si oppone, per ora, la FTC: > >> < > https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/04/ftc-order-requi… > > > >> > >> Per distinguere automaticamente il prodotto di un estrusore di stringhe > di testo probabili da un testo scritto da un essere umano, i due testi > dovrebbero avere qualcosa di diverso, che fosse rintracciabile da un > software. > >> > >> La differenza principale tra i due testi è che uno è stato pensato da > chi l'ha scritto e l'altro no, essendo un'immagine sfuocata di altri testi > (quelli sì, pensati da qualcuno). Suppongo perciò che serva il pensiero, > per riconoscere un testo estruso da un software che produca linguaggio > senza pensiero rispetto a un testo prodotto da un essere pensante. Non > esistono, oggi, software pensanti, perciò gli "AI detector" non esistono. > >> > >> Che ne pensi? > >> > >> Per avere una differenza rintracciabile automaticamente, dovresti > marcare in qualche modo il testo sintetico, che però, immagino, potrà > comunque essere copiato come solo testo. > >> > >> Grazie. > >> Un saluto, > >> Daniela > >> ________________________________________ > >> Da: nexa<nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Enrico > Nardelli<nardelli(a)mat.uniroma2.it> > >> Inviato: sabato 17 maggio 2025 19:53 > >> A:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it > >> Oggetto: [Junk released by Allowed List] [nexa] Qual è il senso...? > >> > >> ... di realizzare strumenti per la verifica che un testo sia stato > generato dall'Intelligenza Artificiale, visto che (oltre a sbagliare > clamorosamente su un mio testo scritto interamente da me che è stato > attribuito per il 71% all'IA - ma l'ultima volta che mi sono controllato mi > son trovato sempre fatto della solita materia organica... 😂) poi la stessa > società offre uno strumento per "umanizzare" il testo? > >> > >> Io ho provato GPTZero, giusto per fare nome e cognome, ma penso che > altre startup simili mettano a disposizione prodotti simili. > >> > >> Mi sa tanto di un gigantesco gioco delle 3 carte... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > many of us believe the EU remains > > the most extraordinary, ambitious, liberal > > political alliance in recorded history. > > where it needs reform, where it needs to evolve, > > we should be there to help turn that heavy wheel > > Ian McEwan, The Guardian, 2/6/2017 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Maurizio Lana > > Università del Piemonte Orientale > > Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici > > Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > l’imbarazzante senso di colpa per la nostra vita > che va avanti coi suoi momenti di gioia e svago > mentre quella di altri non ne ha > S. Vizio > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Maurizio Lana > Università del Piemonte Orientale > Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici > Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli >

1 0

Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, economists claim
by Daniela Tafani May 19, 2025

May 19, 2025

Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, economists claim 'When we look at the outcomes, it really has not moved the needle' Thomas Claburn Tue 29 Apr 2025 Instead of depressing wages or taking jobs, generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini have had almost no significant wage or labor impact so far – a finding that calls into question the huge capital expenditures required to create and run AI models. In a working paper released earlier this month, [Large Language Models, Small Labor Market Effects, <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5219933>] economists Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard looked at the labor market impact of AI chatbots on 11 occupations, covering 25,000 workers and 7,000 workplaces in Denmark in 2023 and 2024. Many of these occupations have been described as being vulnerable to AI: accountants, customer support specialists, financial advisors, HR professionals, IT support specialists, journalists, legal professionals, marketing professionals, office clerks, software developers, and teachers. Yet after Humlum, assistant professor of economics at the Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, and Vestergaard, a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen, analyzed the data, they found the labor and wage impact of chatbots to be minimal. The report should concern the tech industry, which has hyped AI's economic potential while plowing billions into infrastructure meant to support it. Early this year, OpenAI admitted that it loses money per query even on its most expensive enterprise SKU, while companies like Microsoft and Amazon are starting to pull back on their AI infrastructure spending in light of low business adoption past a few pilots. The problem isn't that workers are avoiding generative AI chatbots - quite the contrary. But they simply aren't yet equating to actual economic benefits. The researchers looked at the extent to which company investment in AI has contributed to worker adoption of AI tools, and also how chatbot adoption affected workplace processes. While firm-led investment in AI boosted the adoption of AI tools — saving time for 64 to 90 percent of users across the studied occupations — chatbots had a mixed impact on work quality and satisfaction. The economists found for example that "AI chatbots have created new job tasks for 8.4 percent of workers, including some who do not use the tools themselves." In other words, AI is creating new work that cancels out some potential time savings from using AI in the first place. "One very stark example that it's close to home for me is there are a lot of teachers who now say they spend time trying to detect whether their students are using ChatGPT to cheat on their homework," explained Humlum. He also observed that a lot of workers now say they're spending time reviewing the quality of AI output or writing prompts. Humlum argues that can be spun negatively, as a subtraction from potential productivity gains, or more positively, in the sense that automation tools historically have tended to generate more demand for workers in other tasks. "These new job tasks create new demand for workers, which may boost their wages, if these are more high value added tasks," he said. But overall, the time savings from using AI was less than expected. According to the study, "users report average time savings of just 2.8 percent of work hours" from using AI tools. That's a bit more than one hour per 40 hour work week. The authors note that this finding differs from other randomized controlled trials that have found productivity benefits on the order of 15 percent. And they explain this discrepancy by saying that other studies have focused on occupations with high AI productivity potential and that real-world workers don't operate under the same conditions. "So I think there are two key reasons why the real economic gains are lower than [the cited studies]," said Humlum, noting that his study relies on actual tax data. "First, most tasks do not fall into that category where ChatGPT can just automate everything. And then second, we're in this middle phase where employers are still waking up to the new reality, and we're trying to figure out how to best really realize the potential in these tools. And just at this stage, it's just not been that much of a game changer." Where there are productivity gains to be had, Humlum and Vestergaard estimate that only a small portion of that benefit – between 3 and 7 percent – gets passed through to workers in the form of higher earnings. Humlum said while there are gains and time savings to be had, "there's definitely a question of who they really accrue to. And some of it could be the firms – we cannot directly look at firm profitability. Some of it could also just be that you save some time on existing tasks, but you're not really able to expand your output and therefore earn more. "So it's like it saves you time writing emails. But if you cannot really take on more work or do something else that is really valuable, then that will put a damper on how much we should actually expect those time savings to affect your earning ability, your total hours, your wages." Humlum said the impact of using AI chatbots, in the form of productivity, time savings, and work quality, can be improved through company commitment to internal education and evangelism. He pointed in particular to how firm initiatives can reduce the tool-usage gender gap – fewer women use these tools than men. But doing so at this point doesn't show much promise of payoff. "In terms of economic outcomes, when we're looking at hard metrics – in the administrative labor market data on earnings, wages – these tools have really not made a difference so far," said Humlum. "So I think that that puts in some sense an upper bound on what return we should expect from these tools, at least in the short run. "My general conclusion is that any story that you want to tell about these tools being very transformative, needs to contend with the fact that at least two years after [the introduction of AI chatbots], they've not made a difference for economic outcomes." <https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/29/generative_ai_no_effect_jobs_wages/>

1 0