- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Strumenti per il voto
by de petra giulio Jan. 7, 2025

Jan. 7, 2025

Ci sono ancora strumenti digitali molto semplici ed economici il cui utilizzo può ‘generare’ grandi benefici. Ne scrivono qui Beppe Caravita e Fiorella De Cindio Fonte: CRS - Centro per la Riforma dello Stato Contro l'astensionismo. Che i referendum siano votabili da tutti! https://search.app/4N5S5amtvNo1ZPbG7

1 0

Re: [nexa] In a mirror
by alessandro marzocchi Jan. 6, 2025

Jan. 6, 2025

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 06:45:52 +0100 From: Guido Vetere < vetere.guido(a)gmail.com> wrote: se invece di profetizzare la sventura ci volessimo impegnare per evitarla, forse il modo ci sarebbe ----- In concreto ...? Cordiali auguri. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi)

1 0

"Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Appeals Court"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 3, 2025

Jan. 3, 2025

Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Appeals Court /After nearly two decades of fighting, the battle over regulations that treat broadband providers like utilities came to an end on Thursday./ Jan. 2, 2025Updated 2:51 p.m. ET A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s landmark net neutrality rules on Thursday, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate broadband internet providers like utilities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said <https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0002p-06.pdf> that the F.C.C. lacked the authority to reinstate rules that prevented broadband providers from slowing or blocking access to internet content. The decision put an end to the Biden administration’s hallmark tech policy <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-open-inter…>, which had drawn impassioned support from consumer groups and tech giants like Google and fierce protests by telecommunications giants like Comcast and AT&T. < - > https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/technology/net-neutrality-rules-fcc.htm

1 0

Assisi IA Act
by Norberto Patrignani Jan. 2, 2025

Jan. 2, 2025

carissim*, segnalo (in allegato per comodita') il testo completo dell'AI Assisi Act dal sito dell'Ordine dei Giornalisti: https://www.odg.it/comunicazione-e-ia-per-un-approccio-corretto-e-responsab… buon 2025! Norberto

2 1

16° Conferenza Annuale del Centro Nexa "Guerra, pace e algoritmi" | Video dell'incontro
by Nexa - Media Jan. 2, 2025

Jan. 2, 2025

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi segnaliamo che è ora disponibile sul nostro canale YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@NexaCenter) la registrazione della 16° Conferenza Annuale del Centro Nexa su Internet & Società "Guerra, pace e algoritmi". Un saluto cordiale, -- 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

Solove, "Privacy in Authoritarian Times"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 30, 2024

Dec. 30, 2024

Il contesto di cui parla Daniel Solove nel suono editoriale per il Boston Globe sono gli USA, per cui vari suoi ragionamenti vanno adattati al contesto EU. jc *Privacy in Authoritarian Times* Daniel Solove /Crackdowns on immigrants. Surveillance of abortion providers and abortion seekers. Harassment of critics. These maneuvers in the demagogue’s playbook would be harder to pull off with better digital privacy./ As the United States and much of the world turn back to the darkness of authoritarianism that blighted the previous century, we must remember that privacy is one of the bulwarks against the power of authoritarian governments. Unfortunately, we’re living in a more intensive surveillance society than ever before, and our privacy laws are ill equipped to protect us against government access to our personal data. In the years to come, the federal government and many state governments might engage in surveillance and data gathering as they round up immigrants, punish people for seeking, providing, or assisting abortions, and attack gender-affirming health care. The government might use personal data in its effort to retaliate against those who stand in its way. Such efforts might be assisted by mobs of vigilantes who will use personal data to dox, threaten, embarrass, and harm anyone they don’t like — much like the way many people eagerly assisted totalitarian regimes in finding “undesirables” and rooting out and punishing dissenters. Our best hope for protection is that legislators in Massachusetts and other states who are concerned about these risks take steps now to upgrade their privacy laws. Writing more than two decades ago, I critiqued how digital dossiers existed for all of us <http://ssrn.com/abstract=313301> — extensive repositories of personal data gathered by companies — and how the government could readily gain access to this data. The Fourth Amendment provides minimal to no protection for much of our personal data in the digital age. This is because of the Third-Party Doctrine, a misguided rule manufactured by the US Supreme Court in the 1970s that holds that whenever personal data is in the hands of third parties, people no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it — and as a result, there’s no Fourth Amendment protection. The Third-Party Doctrine is especially problematic and ill-suited to our modern times, when so much of our personal data is in the hands of third parties such as credit card companies, search companies, cloud service providers, online merchants, data brokers, social media companies, and app creators. When the government demands that companies turn over personal data and let authorities use surveillance technologies, will companies refuse to cooperate? If history repeats itself, the answer is no. Last century, many companies supplied the Nazis with the technology <https://time.com/5290043/nazi-history-eu-data-privacy-gdpr/> and information they wanted <https://www.magellantv.com/articles/nazi-data-science-the-dark-history-that…>. Here at home, when the federal government demanded data from companies after 9/11, they readily turned it over — even when it was against their own privacy policies. Even companies that are not eager to cooperate often buckle under government pressure. [...] continua qui: https://teachprivacy.com/privacy-in-authoritarian-times/

1 0

179° Mercoledì di Nexa | 8 gennaio 2025, ore 17.00
by Nexa - Media Dec. 30, 2024

Dec. 30, 2024

Gentilissime, gentilissimi, Vi invitiamo a partecipare al 179° Mercoledì di Nexa, che si terrà mercoledì 8 gennaio, alle ore 17.00, con un incontro dal titolo "Le nuove leggi dello spazio". Ospite dell'incontro: Ugo Pagallo (Trustee del Centro Nexa, Università degli Studi di Torino). 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/mercoledi-179 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

LLM made-in-China (e reso disponibile)
by Damiano Verzulli Dec. 27, 2024

Dec. 27, 2024

Confesso di non riuscire a percepirne i dettagli tecnici (l'architettura degli LLM non è la mia specialita'). Pero' la notizia mi pare comunque interessante: "A Chinese lab has created what appears to be one of the most powerful “open” AI models to date. The model, DeepSeek V3 <https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3>, was developed by the AI firm DeepSeek and was released on Wednesday under a permissive license that allows developers to download and modify it for most applications, including commercial ones. [...]" https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/26/deepseeks-new-ai-model-appears-to-be-one-… Aldila' degli aspetti tecnici (che pure mi interesserebbe approfondire...), il piccolo screenshot che mette in evidenza "the downside" mi ha fatto subito riflettere: con questo LLM cinese... il downside si intuisce e si vede istantaneamente. Chissa' che non ve ne siano altri (di "downside", in altri LLM, creati altrove), che non riusciamo a vedere (almeno io...) con altrettanta semplicita'... Un caro saluto, DV -- Damiano Verzulli e-mail:damiano@verzulli.it --- possible?ok:while(!possible){open_mindedness++} --- "...I realized that free software would not generate the kind of income that was needed. Maybe in USA or Europe, you may be able to get a well paying job as a free software developer, but not here [in Africa]..." -- Guido Sohne - 1973-2008 http://ole.kenic.or.ke/pipermail/skunkworks/2008-April/005989.html

3 2

Re: [nexa] black box in ricerche astronomiche
by alessandro marzocchi Dec. 27, 2024

Dec. 27, 2024

A Giacomo Tesio, se vorrà cercare un dialogo sulla black box con gli astronomi, segnalo che trova l'articolo al link https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa52799-24.pdf, mentre la mail di Ginolfi è michele.ginolfi AT unifi dot it Nel saggio segnalato da Daniela Tafani (grazie a tutti gl’intervenuti!) Giuseppe Longo afferma drasticamente “le langage humain n’est pas l’association d’étiquettes aux choses … Un enfant n’étiquette pas les chaises avec leur nom après maintes expériences” [1]. Ho opinioni diverse. Sull’etichetta prendo ad esempio la parola burro: nessun italiano trasporterebbe legna col burro, nessun spagnolo spalmerebbe burro sul pane, nella realtà asino e burro sono insensibili alle parole che li descrivono. Ed un bambino riconosce gatti, o sedie, in base all’esperienza. Il digitale non ha corpo, con tutto quello che ne deriva, non ha occhi, per fare riferimento alle parole di Alessandro Brolpito (apprendere occhi negli occhi) e questa è tesi ricorrente in Longo che riferisce la costruzione umana del significato al nostro corpo ed alla sua storicità (our biological body and its historicity) [2]. Inoltre il digitale consuma un iradiddio di energia rispetto a noi. Queste sono le due differenze che vedo, altrove vedo un confronto aperto nel quale l'umano conta decine di migliaia di anni di esperienza, moltiplicata per i soggetti che lo hanno composto, mentre il digitale ha pochi anni di esperienza ma si basa su un altro iradiddio di quantità di “dati”. Di per sé, la stessa lingua naturale è un codice che non implica la necessità di “guardarsi negli occhi”, in schema telegrafico penso che: (0) la realtà esiste indipendentemente da noi umani e dai nostri “codici”, parole od altri. (1) il linguaggio naturale non è la realtà ma un codice per rappresentarla e comunicarla. (2) la scrittura aggiunge un ulteriore codice e la possibilità di trasmissione nello spazio e nel tempo. (2.1) oggi, e dopo circa 7mila anni, la scrittura è diffusa e compresa quasi universalmente. (3) il digitale è un ulteriore codice. (3.1) il digitale ripropone problemi di potere e di comprensione diffusa che non sono nuovi, penso agli scriba nell’antico Egitto ed all’analfabetisco che i vecchi, ma tuttora viventi, hanno conosciuto direttamente. (3.2) il digitale permette di riprodurre e potenziare “funzioni ed operazioni” finora ritenute esclusiva umana, analogamente a quanto accadde col codice scrittura. (4) vedo un ultimo punto, quasi un fuori tema rispetto a ciò che precede: il significato della parola è quello che prevale nell’uso, la lingua è mobile. Mi pare che quanto sopra corrisponda al pensiero di Longo, non limitato alle affermazioni di cui sopra, ad es: “Il nostro cervello … è innanzitutto un "integratore" di informazioni ed atti fra i piu' svariati; il nostro dialogo nella storia fra esseri muniti di cervello, è una permanante integrazione di atti d'esperienza e di costruzioni mentali” [3]. Sull’esperienza umana fra parola e realtà faccio due proposte: (1) ipotizziamo esperimenti per verificare se l’esperienza influisce su linguaggio e parola? (2) può Nexa invitare Longo ad un incontro? Ciò che più m'intriga è la domanda che ancora una volta pone Longo (sopra: Information …): “”clarifying what one means by the fashionable reference to information: is this dehumanized, formal sign pushing, like in digital machines, or interpreted information, that is the explicit proposal of an interpreting perspective for knowledge construction? “”. Le macchine potrebbero darci analisi “deumanizzate”? Depurate dalla umanissima tendenza a conformare a noi analisi, interpretazioni ed a volte con la tentazione di conformare a noi la realtà? Da tempo misuriamo la febbre con la macchina termometro ma questo non ha diminuito la relazione interpersonale. Però, con velocità pericolosa il digitale sta avviandosi nel cammino che porta alla schiavitù umana, ma è possibile che questa direzione cambi ed ogni partecipante a Nexa s’impegna per questo. Per ora sono convinto che molto ruota intorno alla parola, nella quale vedo le caratteristiche sopra schematizzate di codice interamente ed esclusivamente umano. Spero abbiate passato un buon Natale, auguri cordiali per il 2025 e grazie per la paziente lettura. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) [1] https://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo/files/ReconnaitreCaricature.pdf [2] Giuseppe Longo. Information at the Threshold of Interpretation, Science as Human Construction of Sense.. Bertolaso, Marta; Sterpetti, Fabio. A Critical Reflection on Automated Science – Will Science Remain Human?, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, pp.67-100, 2019, 3030250008, 978-3030250003. https://hal.science/hal-02903688 [3] Lo spazio, i fondamenti della Matematica e la resistibile ascesa della metafora: il cervello è un calcolatore digitale - https://ens.hal.science/hal-03318837/document

1 0

Leaked Documents Show OpenAI Has a Very Clear Definition of ‘AGI’
by Daniela Tafani Dec. 27, 2024

Dec. 27, 2024

Leaked Documents Show OpenAI Has a Very Clear Definition of ‘AGI’ We finally have a real definition of the elusive "AGI." By Thomas Maxwell Published December 26, 2024 OpenAI and Microsoft have a secret definition for “AGI,” an acronym for artificial general intelligence, or any system that can outperform humans at most tasks. According to leaked documents obtained by The Information, the two companies came to agree in 2023 that AGI will be achieved once OpenAI has developed an AI system that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. There has long been a debate in the AI community about what AGI means, or whether computers will ever be good enough to outperform humans at most tasks and subsequently wipe out major swaths of the economy. The term “artificial intelligence” is something of a misnomer because much of it is just a prediction machine, taking in keywords and searching large amounts of data without really understanding the underlying concepts. But OpenAI has received more than $13 billion in funding from Microsoft over the years, and that money has come with a strange contractual agreement that the startup would stop allowing Microsoft to use any new technology it develops after AGI is achieved. OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit under the guise that it would use its influence to create products that benefit all of humanity. The idea behind cutting off Microsoft once AGI is attained is that unfettered access to OpenAI intellectual property could unduly concentrate power in the tech giant. In order to incentivize it for investing billions in the nonprofit, which would have never gone public, Microsoft’s current agreement with OpenAI entitles it and other investors to take a slice of profits until they collect $100 billion. The cap is meant to ensure most profit eventually goes back to building products that benefit the entirety of humanity. This is all pie-in-the-sky thinking since, again, AI is not that powerful at this point. It has been clear for some time that OpenAI does not care about public benefit, and the company has been looking to pivot into a for-profit structure (while maintaining its mission to benefit all of humanity, somehow), because the current nonprofit structure makes it difficult to raise the gobs of money needed to compete. Consequently, The Information says Microsoft and OpenAI have been negotiating a host of changes to their arrangement that would go into place should the company restructure. Microsoft currently serves as OpenAI’s exclusive cloud hosting provider, and OpenAI may want to end that as well as stop profit-sharing and switch to simply giving Microsoft equity. Microsoft and OpenAI have been on diverging paths for some time now. It was recently reported that the latter has begun incorporating AI models developed in-house into its 365 Copilot product in order to improve cost and efficiency. It doesn’t make sense for Microsoft to continue relying on OpenAI, an independent company developing similar productivity tools, for technology that it believes will be the backbone of its productivity software going forward. Especially with all the chaos and drama that has surrounded OpenAI. That is probably why it is not continuing to fund OpenAI. Microsoft needs its own proprietary tech to chart its own path. OpenAI is far away from achieving that $100 billion in profit milestone—it is expected to generate $4 billion in revenue for 2024— on technology whose true value remains speculative, which means under the current arrangement it would likely have to keep handing its technology and profits over to Microsoft for a long time. That is not great as they head towards becoming competitors and OpenAI seeks new investors. Getting rid of the cloud hosting tie-up could also allow OpenAI to negotiate better hosting costs with an alternative provider, something Google has told the FTC in a letter imploring it to nullify the agreement. Elon Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI and former board member, has been suing to try and stop the company from converting into a for-profit entity. He has argued, among other things, that he invested roughly $50 million into the company in its early days believing it would be a non-profit in perpetuity, and now feels deceived. He has also complained in court that OpenAI pays exorbitant salaries in a way that is intended to thwart rivals and therefore anti-competitive. Because Musk has launched his own competing AI startup, xAI, skeptics think his lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt at slowing down OpenAI’s growth. <https://gizmodo.com/leaked-documents-show-openai-has-a-very-clear-definitio…>

1 0