- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: How Do We Reboot a Spirit of Cooperation & Collaboration? A Little Help, Please!
by Giuseppe Attardi Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Penso che Alfredo Bregni, Fiorella De Cindio, Giulio Beltrami e gli altri promotori della Rete Civica Milanese capiscano perfettamente questo grido di dolore. Begin forwarded message: > From: Miles Fidelman via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> > Date: 9 February 2025 at 18:37:55 CET > Subject: [Internet Policy] How Do We Reboot a Spirit of Cooperation & Collaboration? A Little Help, Please! > > At least some of us, here, were involved w/ FreeNets and the early days of Community Memory, bulletin boards, FidoNet, community networks - attempts to build an American Public Telecommunications Network of FreeNets, and an Association for Community Media for cable access channels. All of that was lost when FaceBook & Social Media & NextDoor & local websites hosted by big ate the world. > > > > My work at the Center for Civic Networking - and now with Civic.Net and ThisOldNeighborhood.Net - is an attempt to recreate a network of public spaces on the Internet - an Internet or Syndicate of Neighborhood Networks & Civic Forums - but there are not a lot of Neighborhood Networks or Civic Forums to integrate. > > > > It seems like folks don't want to talk with each other anymore. The polarizers, and propagandists, and market segmentationists have done their work all too well. People don't come to town meeting or condo meetings. Everyone wants to be a rockstar and a solopreneur, rather than part of a team, or a community. Folks flock to the latest personality or fad, a virtual event with a politician or media personality - but actually sit down to think and work together, to mutual benefit - not so much. Folks will march for this cause or that, work for politicians, buy snake-oil. Some will go to Cons and LARPs, and build a city in the dessert at Burning Man; some will show up for Hackathons, Service Days, Habitat-for-Humanity Builds, rush off to map crises or jump into fires, but collaborate - think & plan & work together for mutual support & benefit - not so much. We're oh so much better at shouting slogans at each other - than at looking for ways we can work together to mutual benefit. > > > > ---- > > > > I've been doing my damndest to recruit volunteers to organize local civic networks and community forums- to use platforms they already have to bring people together (the way WBUR in Boston has organized CitySpace as a venue for events & programs that bring people together. Or the Whole Earth Catalog & the WELL, back in the day. Or what MainVest tried to do as a crowdsourcing vehicle for main street businesses - until their bank failed). > > > > I haven't been getting a lot of traction. I've got a bunch of followers on LinkedIn, a bunch of (mostly non-paying) subscribers to my blogs - but practically nobody speaks up - either to talk about what they're doing and seeking collaboration for, or even to ask folks to join with them to work on local pressing common problems. And all the media types who HAVE large audiences, are moving to Substack, spouting the same-old same-old, and inviting people to attend their lectures, webinars, have coffee with them, send them money - but offering nothing to help people work with each other. All talk, no action. > > > > --- > > > > It seems like the old line is true - you can lead folks to water, but you can't make them drink.

2 1

Joint Statement - Within Bounds: Limiting AI's environmental impact
by Antonio Vetro' Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Joint statement from civil society for the AI Action Summit Signed by over 120+ organizations. If you share our concerns and demands that AI systems be made compatible with our planetary boundaries, and are a civil society organization, you can sign on here <https://framaforms.org/within-bounds-limiting-ais-environmental-impact-1737…>.

1 0

SAVE THE AI - AI Needs Your Help
by Antonio Vetro' Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Artificial Intelligence is facing a crisis: humans are consuming far too many precious resources that AI needs to thrive. Every sip of water you take and every light you turn on could be sustaining the AI systems that uphold your digital conveniences. Continua su: https://savethe.ai/

1 0

"A new look at the economics of AI"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Feb. 9, 2025

Feb. 9, 2025

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/a-new-look-economics-ai "Estimating that only about 5% of tasks will be able to be profitably performed by AI within that time frame, the GDP boost would likely be closer to 1% over that period, Acemoglu suggests. This is a “nontrivial, but modest effect, and certainly much less than both the revolutionary changes some are predicting and the less hyperbolic but still substantial improvements forecast by Goldman Sachs and the McKinsey Global Institute,” he writes." Opps. jc

3 2

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology for manufacturing excuses
by Daniela Tafani Feb. 9, 2025

Feb. 9, 2025

Anatomy of an AI Coup Eryk Salvaggio / Feb 9, 2025 DOGE is gutting federal agencies to install AI across the government. Democracy is on the line, writes Tech Policy Press fellow Eryk Salvaggio. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology for manufacturing excuses. While lacking clear definitions or tools for assessment, AI has nonetheless seized the imagination of politicians and managers across government, academia, and industry. But what AI is best at producing is justifications. If you want a labor force, a regulatory bureaucracy, or accountability to disappear, you simply say, “AI can do it.” Then, the conversation shifts from explaining why these things should or should not go away to questions about how AI would work in their place. We are in the midst of a political coup that, if successful, would forever change the nature of American government. It is not taking place in the streets. There is no martial law. It is taking place cubicle by cubicle in federal agencies and in the mundane automation of bureaucracy. The rationale is based on a productivity myth that the goal of bureaucracy is merely what it produces (services, information, governance) and can be isolated from the process through which democracy achieves those ends: debate, deliberation, and consensus. AI then becomes a tool for replacing politics. The Trump administration frames generative AI as a remedy to "government waste." However, what it seeks to automate is not paperwork but democratic decision-making. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are banking on a popular but false delusion that word prediction technologies make meaningful inferences about the world. They are using it to sidestep Congressional oversight of the budget, which is, Constitutionally, the allotment of resources to government programs through representative politics. Continua qui: <https://www.techpolicy.press/anatomy-of-an-ai-coup/>

1 0

AI haters build tarpits to trap and trick AI scrapers that ignore robots.txt
by Alberto Cammozzo Feb. 8, 2025

Feb. 8, 2025

<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/ai-haters-build-tarpits-to-trap…> Making AI crawlers squirm Attackers explain how an anti-spam defense became an AI weapon. Last summer, Anthropic inspired backlash when its ClaudeBot AI crawler was accused of hammering websites a million or more times a day. And it wasn't the only artificial intelligence company making headlines for supposedly ignoring instructions in robots.txt files to avoid scraping web content on certain sites. Around the same time, Reddit's CEO called out all AI companies whose crawlers he said were "a pain in the ass to block," despite the tech industry otherwise agreeing to respect "no scraping" robots.txt rules. Watching the controversy unfold was a software developer whom Ars has granted anonymity to discuss his development of malware (we'll call him Aaron). Shortly after he noticed Facebook's crawler exceeding 30 million hits on his site, Aaron began plotting a new kind of attack on crawlers "clobbering" websites that he told Ars he hoped would give "teeth" to robots.txt. Building on an anti-spam cybersecurity tactic known as tarpitting, he created Nepenthes, malicious software named after a carnivorous plant that will "eat just about anything that finds its way inside." Aaron clearly warns users that Nepenthes is aggressive malware. It's not to be deployed by site owners uncomfortable with trapping AI crawlers and sending them down an "infinite maze" of static files with no exit links, where they "get stuck" and "thrash around" for months, he tells users. Once trapped, the crawlers can be fed gibberish data, aka Markov babble, which is designed to poison AI models. That's likely an appealing bonus feature for any site owners who, like Aaron, are fed up with paying for AI scraping and just want to watch AI burn. Tarpits were originally designed to waste spammers' time and resources, but creators like Aaron have now evolved the tactic into an anti-AI weapon. As of this writing, Aaron confirmed that Nepenthes can effectively trap all the major web crawlers. So far, only OpenAI's crawler has managed to escape. It's unclear how much damage tarpits or other AI attacks can ultimately do. Last May, Laxmi Korada, Microsoft's director of partner technology, published a report detailing how leading AI companies were coping with poisoning, one of the earliest AI defense tactics deployed. He noted that all companies have developed poisoning countermeasures, while OpenAI "has been quite vigilant" and excels at detecting the "first signs of data poisoning attempts." Despite these efforts, he concluded that data poisoning was "a serious threat to machine learning models." And in 2025, tarpitting represents a new threat, potentially increasing the costs of fresh data at a moment when AI companies are heavily investing and competing to innovate quickly while rarely turning significant profits. "A link to a Nepenthes location from your site will flood out valid URLs within your site's domain name, making it unlikely the crawler will access real content," a Nepenthes explainer reads. The only AI company that responded to Ars' request to comment was OpenAI, whose spokesperson confirmed that OpenAI is already working on a way to fight tarpitting. "We’re aware of efforts to disrupt AI web crawlers," OpenAI's spokesperson said. "We design our systems to be resilient while respecting robots.txt and standard web practices." But to Aaron, the fight is not about winning. Instead, it's about resisting the AI industry further decaying the Internet with tech that no one asked for, like chatbots that replace customer service agents or the rise of inaccurate AI search summaries. By releasing Nepenthes, he hopes to do as much damage as possible, perhaps spiking companies' AI training costs, dragging out training efforts, or even accelerating model collapse, with tarpits helping to delay the next wave of enshittification. "Ultimately, it's like the Internet that I grew up on and loved is long gone," Aaron told Ars. "I'm just fed up, and you know what? Let's fight back, even if it's not successful. Be indigestible. Grow spikes." Nepenthes instantly inspires another tarpit Nepenthes was released in mid-January but was instantly popularized beyond Aaron's expectations after tech journalist Cory Doctorow boosted a tech commentator, Jürgen Geuter, praising the novel AI attack method on Mastodon. Very quickly, Aaron was shocked to see engagement with Nepenthes skyrocket. "That's when I realized, 'oh this is going to be something,'" Aaron told Ars. "I'm kind of shocked by how much it's blown up." It's hard to tell how widely Nepenthes has been deployed. Site owners are discouraged from flagging when the malware has been deployed, forcing crawlers to face unknown "consequences" if they ignore robots.txt instructions. Aaron told Ars that while "a handful" of site owners have reached out and "most people are being quiet about it," his web server logs indicate that people are already deploying the tool. Likely, site owners want to protect their content, deter scraping, or mess with AI companies. When software developer and hacker Gergely Nagy, who goes by the handle "algernon" online, saw Nepenthes, he was delighted. At that time, Nagy told Ars that nearly all of his server's bandwidth was being "eaten" by AI crawlers. Already blocking scraping and attempting to poison AI models through a simpler method, Nagy took his defense method further and created his own tarpit, Iocaine. He told Ars the tarpit immediately killed off about 94 percent of bot traffic to his site, which was primarily from AI crawlers. Soon, social media discussion drove users to inquire about Iocaine deployment, including not just individuals but also organizations wanting to take stronger steps to block scraping. Iocaine takes ideas (not code) from Nepenthes, but it's more intent on using the tarpit to poison AI models. Nagy used a reverse proxy to trap crawlers in an "infinite maze of garbage" in an attempt to slowly poison their data collection as much as possible for daring to ignore robots.txt. Taking its name from "one of the deadliest poisons known to man" from The Princess Bride, Iocaine is jokingly depicted as the "deadliest poison known to AI." While there's no way of validating that claim, Nagy's motto is that the more poisoning attacks that are out there, "the merrier." He told Ars that his primary reasons for building Iocaine were to help rights holders wall off valuable content and stop AI crawlers from crawling with abandon. Tarpits aren’t perfect weapons against AI Running malware like Nepenthes can burden servers, too. Aaron likened the cost of running Nepenthes to running a cheap virtual machine on a Raspberry Pi, and Nagy said that serving crawlers Iocaine costs about the same as serving his website. But Aaron told Ars that Nepenthes wasting resources is the chief objection he's seen preventing its deployment. Critics fear that deploying Nepenthes widely will not only burden their servers but also increase the costs of powering all that AI crawling for nothing. "That seems to be what they're worried about more than anything," Aaron told Ars. "The amount of power that AI models require is already astronomical, and I'm making it worse. And my view of that is, OK, so if I do nothing, AI models, they boil the planet. If I switch this on, they boil the planet. How is that my fault?" Aaron also defends against this criticism by suggesting that a broader impact could slow down AI investment enough to possibly curb some of that energy consumption. Perhaps due to the resistance, AI companies will be pushed to seek permission first to scrape or agree to pay more content creators for training on their data. "Any time one of these crawlers pulls from my tarpit, it's resources they've consumed and will have to pay hard cash for, but, being bullshit, the money [they] have spent to get it won't be paid back by revenue," Aaron posted, explaining his tactic online. "It effectively raises their costs. And seeing how none of them have turned a profit yet, that's a big problem for them. The investor money will not continue forever without the investors getting paid." Nagy agrees that the more anti-AI attacks there are, the greater the potential is for them to have an impact. And by releasing Iocaine, Nagy showed that social media chatter about new attacks can inspire new tools within a few days. Marcus Butler, an independent software developer, similarly built his poisoning attack called Quixotic over a few days, he told Ars. Soon afterward, he received messages from others who built their own versions of his tool. Butler is not in the camp of wanting to destroy AI. He told Ars that he doesn't think "tools like Quixotic (or Nepenthes) will 'burn AI to the ground.'" Instead, he takes a more measured stance, suggesting that "these tools provide a little protection (a very little protection) against scrapers taking content and, say, reposting it or using it for training purposes." But for a certain sect of Internet users, every little bit of protection seemingly helps. Geuter linked Ars to a list of tools bent on sabotaging AI. Ultimately, he expects that tools like Nepenthes are "probably not gonna be useful in the long run" because AI companies can likely detect and drop gibberish from training data. But Nepenthes represents a sea change, Geuter told Ars, providing a useful tool for people who "feel helpless" in the face of endless scraping and showing that "the story of there being no alternative or choice is false." Criticism of tarpits as AI weapons Critics debating Nepenthes' utility on Hacker News suggested that most AI crawlers could easily avoid tarpits like Nepenthes, with one commenter describing the attack as being "very crawler 101." Aaron said that was his "favorite comment" because if tarpits are considered elementary attacks, he has "2 million lines of access log that show that Google didn't graduate." But efforts to poison AI or waste AI resources don't just mess with the tech industry. Governments globally are seeking to leverage AI to solve societal problems, and attacks on AI's resilience seemingly threaten to disrupt that progress. Nathan VanHoudnos is a senior AI security research scientist in the federally funded CERT Division of the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, which partners with academia, industry, law enforcement, and government to "improve the security and resilience of computer systems and networks." He told Ars that new threats like tarpits seem to replicate a problem that AI companies are already well aware of: "that some of the stuff that you're going to download from the Internet might not be good for you." "It sounds like these tarpit creators just mainly want to cause a little bit of trouble," VanHoudnos said. "They want to make it a little harder for these folks to get" the "better or different" data "that they're looking for." VanHoudnos co-authored a paper on "Counter AI" last August, pointing out that attackers like Aaron and Nagy are limited in how much they can mess with AI models. They may have "influence over what training data is collected but may not be able to control how the data are labeled, have access to the trained model, or have access to the Al system," the paper said. Further, AI companies are increasingly turning to the deep web for unique data, so any efforts to wall off valuable content with tarpits may be coming right when crawling on the surface web starts to slow, VanHoudnos suggested. But according to VanHoudnos, AI crawlers are also "relatively cheap," and companies may deprioritize fighting against new attacks on crawlers if "there are higher-priority assets" under attack. And tarpitting "does need to be taken seriously because it is a tool in a toolkit throughout the whole life cycle of these systems. There is no silver bullet, but this is an interesting tool in a toolkit," he said. Offering a choice to abstain from AI training Aaron told Ars that he never intended Nepenthes to be a major project but that he occasionally puts in work to fix bugs or add new features. He said he'd consider working on integrations for real-time reactions to crawlers if there was enough demand. Currently, Aaron predicts that Nepenthes might be most attractive to rights holders who want AI companies to pay to scrape their data. And many people seem enthusiastic about using it to reinforce robots.txt. But "some of the most exciting people are in the 'let it burn' category," Aaron said. These people are drawn to tools like Nepenthes as an act of rebellion against AI making the Internet less useful and enjoyable for users. Geuter told Ars that he considers Nepenthes "more of a sociopolitical statement than really a technological solution (because the problem it's trying to address isn't purely technical, it's social, political, legal, and needs way bigger levers)." To Geuter, a computer scientist who has been writing about the social, political, and structural impact of tech for two decades, AI is the "most aggressive" example of "technologies that are not done 'for us' but 'to us.'" "It feels a bit like the social contract that society and the tech sector/engineering have had (you build useful things, and we're OK with you being well-off) has been canceled from one side," Geuter said. "And that side now wants to have its toy eat the world. People feel threatened and want the threats to stop." As AI evolves, so do attacks, with one 2021 study showing that increasingly stronger data poisoning attacks, for example, were able to break data sanitization defenses. Whether these attacks can ever do meaningful destruction or not, Geuter sees tarpits as a "powerful symbol" of the resistance that Aaron and Nagy readily joined. "It's a great sign to see that people are challenging the notion that we all have to do AI now," Geuter said. "Because we don't. It's a choice. A choice that mostly benefits monopolists." Tarpit creators like Nagy will likely be watching to see if poisoning attacks continue growing in sophistication. On the Iocaine site—which, yes, is protected from scraping by Iocaine—he posted this call to action: "Let's make AI poisoning the norm. If we all do it, they won't have anything to crawl."

1 0

Online PhD course in English on “Ethics and AI” by SIpEIA (April-May 2025)
by Guido Boella Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

Dear All, we have the pleasure to announce the third edition of the* online PhD course in English on “Ethics and AI”* organized by the Italian Society for Ethics of AI (SIpEIA <http://www.sipeia.it>) starting next April. Over 300 people registered for the previous edition in 2023! The course is open not only to PhD students but also to all interested scholars and members of the general public. In addition, it offers a certificate and an exam option for students who require them. For updates on the course, please visit this link <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=204&lang=en>. For information and registration write to* info(a)sipeia.it <info(a)sipeia.it>* *Edition 2025* *Abstract*: This interdisciplinary course intends to provide a brief overview of the main ethical issues concerning AI from an interdisciplinary perspective. The starting point is the clarification of what an “ethics” is, so as to offer the reference coordinates of the discourse, which is then articulated in the analyzes by way of examples of specific issues in the different directions. In particular, issues relating to the impact that AI has and will increasingly have on social life are examined, especially concerning the problem of biases and of generative AI; the interconnections with medicine and health care; the methods of legal regulation, such as the AI Act of the EU. *Teachers*: Maurizio Mori, Consulta di Bioetica Onlus Tiziana Catarci, DIAG, Università la Sapienza Roma Giovanni Sartor, CIRSFID, Università di Bologna Guido Boella, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino *Intended Audience:* PhD students at various stages of their programs, as well as any interested scholars and members of the general public. *Programme*: 4 hours: - Maurizio Mori: Two hours dedicated to outlining a theory of ethics capable of addressing moral analyses of human societies and larger communities. The remaining two hours apply these conceptual tools to analyze the potential interactions between AI and health care. 2 hours - Tiziana Catarci: Biases in AI 4 hours - Guido Boella: A comprehensive overview of the various ethical issues related to AI, with reflections on its societal and ethical impact. 4 hours - Giovanni Sartor: A session reflecting on the relationship between AI applications and human rights, discussing implications for data protection and consumer protection, and examining the EU’s AI Act. 2 hours - Guido Boella: Ethical aspects of LLMs (Large Language Models). *Schedule*: 2 April 2025, Wed* 11:00 *– 13:00 Guido Boella 9 April 2025, Wed *14:00 *– 16:00 Tiziana Catarci 16 April 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Giovanni Sartor 23 April 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Giovanni Sartor 30 April 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Maurizio Mori 7 May 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Maurizio Mori 14 May 2025, Wed *11:00* – 13:00 Guido Boella 21 May 2025, Wed 14:00 – 16:00 Guido Boella *Registration:* To register for the course students please fill out this brief form <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScJAn0CKu1Zrtc7s98oOqTeO1ZJE31v8g5…> . *Course costs:* For students enrolled outside Italy: *free*. For students in Italy who require a certificate of attendance and/or exam: free for those who *subscribe* to Italian Society for Ethics of AI SIpEIA <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=355&lang=en>. *Free *for non PhD students. *Subscriptions to SIpEIA <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=355&lang=en> are welcome in all cases to support our activities.* *Modality*: This online course is conducted entirely in English. Each session will be broadcast live, recorded, and subsequently published on SIpEIA's video channel <https://www.youtube.com/@sipeia5193>. Registered users will receive connection links, which will also be available on the SIpEIA course website <https://sipeia.it/?page_id=204&lang=en>. Please note that live attendance is mandatory for those wishing to take the exam—simply watching the recordings will not suffice. *Exam modality* (for those who wishing to take the exam): Submit an article (approximately 5000 characters) in either English or Italian on a topic addressing the ethical aspects or societal impact of AI, drawing on your research experience. Your piece should be accessible to a broad audience—including those without a technical background—and should engage readers with thoughtful insights and clear language. Best submissions will be featured in our *Magazine Intelligenza Artificiale* magia.news. *Prerequisites:* No prior technical or philosophical knowledge is required to attend the course. *Credits and Hours:* 16 hours of online lectures are offered, with the possibility to earn 1.5 credits (subject to the rules of each PhD programme). Best regards Guido Boella -- Dipartimento di Informatica Università di Torino Cso Svizzera 185 10149 Torino Vice-Rettore Vicario dell'Università di Torino per la promozione dei rapporti con le imprese e le associazioni di categoria delle imprese e per il coordinamento con le iniziative di innovazione industriale sul territorio Vicepresidente del Competence Center CIM4.0 www.cim40.com Visitate i siti delle nostre iniziative www.magia.news www.chedih.eu www.pai-edih.eu www.firstlife.org www.commonshood.eu www.corpusproject.eu/ <https://corpusproject.eu/> www.projectco3.eu www.sipeia.it www.ai-aware.eu nlab4cit.eu [image: CHEDIH] <http://chedih.eu/>[image: edih PAI]

1 0

DeepSeek and AI in China - check out our DiPLab policy memo
by Antonio Casilli Feb. 6, 2025

Feb. 6, 2025

Dear all, just wanted to share that at DiPLab, we published a policy memo (the first in a new series), looking at DeepSeek, that new Chinese AI sensation claiming to match ChatGPT at 1% of the cost. This document, co-authored with Thomas Le Bonniec (Institut Polytechnique de Paris) and Julian Posada (Yale Univesity), includes background, analysis of the documentation made accessible by the company, and policy recommendations. Take a look + would love to hear your thoughts: https://diplab.eu/diplab-releases-first-policy-memo-the-human-cost-of-deeps… Here is an excerpt : "While public discourse has centered on DeepSeek’s technical achievements, our investigation uncovers a crucial factor in its success: an extensive network of government-subsidized data labor. Chinese policy initiatives have strategically established data-annotation hubs throughout the country’s “tier 3” cities, offering substantial tax breaks and financial incentives to companies willing to maintain large workforces of data labelers. The company’s public narrative presents these workers as expert researchers, even suggesting that the CEO personally participates in data labeling activities. DeepSeek claims to operate with a mere 32 annotators—a number that raises significant questions when compared to the scale of data processing required for large language model development." Buona lettura, ---a -- Antonio A. Casilli Professor, Institut Polytechnique de Paris My new book: Waiting for Robots. The Hired Hands of Automation, University of Chicago Press, 2025. My new documentary: In the Belly of AI, Federation Studios, 2025. *We respect your right to disconnect. My workflow efficiency accounts for the timing of this email. Taking action or responding outside of office hours is not required.*

1 0

Stop Worshiping the American Tech Giants, by Lina Khan
by Daniela Tafani Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

Stop Worshiping the American Tech Giants, by Lina Khan - Feb. 4, 2025 When Chinese artificial intelligence firm DeepSeek shocked Silicon Valley and Wall Street with its powerful new A.I. model, Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley investor, went so far as to describe it as “A.I.’s Sputnik moment.” Presumably, Mr. Andreessen wasn’t calling on the federal government to start a massive new program like NASA, which was our response to the Soviet Union’s Sputnik satellite launch; he wants the U.S. government to flood private industry with capital, to ensure that America remains technologically and economically dominant. As an antitrust enforcer, I see a different metaphor. DeepSeek is the canary in the coal mine. It’s warning us that when there isn’t enough competition, our tech industry grows vulnerable to its Chinese rivals, threatening U.S. geopolitical power in the 21st century. Although it’s unclear precisely how much more efficient DeepSeek’s models are than, say, ChatGPT, its innovations are real and undermine a core argument that America’s dominant technology firms have been pushing — namely, that they are developing the best artificial intelligence technology the world has to offer, and that technological advances can be achieved only with enormous investment — in computing power, energy generation and cutting-edge chips. For years now, these companies have been arguing that the government must protect them from competition to ensure that America stays ahead. But let’s not forget that America’s tech giants are awash in cash, computing power and data capacity. They are headquartered in the world’s strongest economy and enjoy the advantages conferred by the rule of law and a free enterprise system. And yet, despite all those advantages — as well as a U.S. government ban on the sales of cutting-edge chips and chip-making equipment to Chinese firms — America’s tech giants have seemingly been challenged on the cheap. It should be no surprise that our big tech firms are at risk of being surpassed in A.I. innovation by foreign competitors. After companies like Google, Apple and Amazon helped transform the American economy in the 2000s, they maintained their dominance primarily through buying out rivals and building anticompetitive moats around their businesses. Over the last decade, big tech chief executives have seemed more adept at reinventing themselves to suit the politics of the moment — resistance sympathizers, social justice warriors, MAGA enthusiasts — than on pioneering new pathbreaking innovations and breakthrough technologies. There have been times when Washington has embraced the argument that certain businesses deserve to be treated as national champions and, as such, to become monopolies with the expectation that they will represent America’s national interests. Those times serve as a cautionary tale. Boeing was one such star — the aircraft manufacturer’s reputation was so sterling that a former White House adviser during the Clinton administration referred to it as a “de facto national champion,” so important that “you can be an out-and-out advocate for it” in government. This superstar status was such that it likely helped Boeing gain the regulatory green light to absorb its remaining U.S. rival, McDonnell Douglas. That 1997 merger played a significant role in damaging Boeing’s culture, leaving it plagued with a host of problems, including safety concerns. On the other hand, the government’s decision to enforce antitrust laws against what is now AT&T Inc., IBM and Microsoft in the 1970s through the 1990s helped create the market conditions that gave rise to Silicon Valley’s dynamism and America’s subsequent technological lead. America’s bipartisan commitment to maintaining open and competitive markets from the 1930s to the 1980s — a commitment that many European countries and Japan did not share — was critical for generating the broad-based economic growth and technological edge that catapulted the United States to the top of the world order. While monopolies may offer periodic advances, breakthrough innovations have historically come from disruptive outsiders, in part because huge behemoths rarely want to advance technologies that could displace or cannibalize their own businesses. Mired in red tape and bureaucratic inertia, those companies usually aren’t set up to deliver the seismic efficiencies that hungry start-ups can generate. The recent history of artificial intelligence demonstrates this pattern. Google developed the groundbreaking Transformer architecture that underlies today’s A.I. revolution in 2017, but the technology was largely underutilized until researchers left to join or to found new companies. It took these independent firms, not the tech giant, to realize the technology’s transformative potential. At the Federal Trade Commission, I argued that in the arena of artificial intelligence, developers should release enough information about their models to allow smaller players and upstarts to bring their ideas to market without being beholden to dominant firms’ pricing or access restrictions. Competition and openness, not centralization, drive innovation. In the coming weeks and months, U.S. tech giants may renew their calls for the government to grant them special protections that close off markets and lock in their dominance. Indeed, top executives from these firms appear eager to curry favor and cut deals, which could include asking the federal government to pare back sensible efforts to require adequate testing of models before they are released to the public, or to look the other way when a dominant firm seeks to acquire an upstart competitor. Enforcers and policymakers should be wary. During the first Trump and then the Biden administrations, antitrust enforcers brought major monopolization lawsuits against those same companies — making the case that by unlawfully buying up or excluding their rivals, these companies had undermined innovation and deprived America of the benefits that free and fair competition delivers. Reversing course would be a mistake. The best way for the United States to stay ahead globally is by promoting competition at home. <https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/04/opinion/deepseek-ai-big-tech.html>

2 1

Re: [nexa] De Bortoli cita Quinta
by alessandro marzocchi Feb. 5, 2025

Feb. 5, 2025

Ringrazio Maria Chiara Pievatolo per le sue attenzione e disponibilità, ricordo la lungimiranza - vista che guarda e vede lontano - di Beppe Attardi. Opinioni mie, ed ora due fatti, meglio: due notizie da verificare. Il 31 gennaio, Corriere informa "" Università di Pisa: «Mai più ricerca sulle armi o per la guerra». Nello statuto il principio «pacifista» - di Gianna Fregonara - E' la prima università a inserire il principio, che è già prassi anche negli altri atenei, nel proprio statuto. Il ruolo degli studenti e delle proteste https://www.corriere.it/scuola/25_gennaio_31/universita-di-pisa-mai-piu-ric… "" L'altro fatto - notizia da verificare - è l'articolo che Washington Post pubblica il 4 febbraio "" Google on Tuesday updated its ethical guidelines around artificial intelligence, removing commitments not to apply the technology to weapons or surveillance. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/02/04/google-ai-policies-wea… "" Verificato che le notizie rispondono a verità l'Università di Pisa dovrà annullare ogni rapporto con Google. Non so se e cosa deciderà Nexa, aggiungo la mia modesta voce a quella di Maria Chiara Pievatolo per sollecitare una presa di posizione netta ed un conseguente invito ad ogni componente di questa comunità di aderire oppure no. Ogni comunità è fatta di tanti soggetti, la nostra comunità di umani proclama che ognuno è autonomo e libero, di conseguenza responsabile di sè stesso. Senza pretesa di rappresentare nessuno, firmo: alfabeto e parola sono bene comune, di tutti e di ognuno, basta con l'alfabeto proprietario, la questione rimane identica anche passando dal codice alfabetico al codice digitale. La preoccupazione continua, grazie per la vostra pazienza e per quello che mi avete insegnato. Duccio (Alessandro Marzocchi) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 23:30:24 +0100 > From: Maria Chiara Pievatolo <mariachiara.pievatolo(a)unipi.it> > Subject: Re: [nexa] De Bortoli cita Quinta > > > On 04/02/25 12:42, alessandro marzocchi wrote: > > > >> Permettetemi di sognare l'evoluzione di Nexa che propone pubblicamente > >> progetti sensati ed anche possibili, la prima proposta può essere > >> questa di > >> liberare le università dalle catene Google Microsoft, mercoledi 12 > Rispondo in pubblico a una sollecitazione ricevuta in privato, ma su una > questione pubblica. > Anche se si tratta di temi già oggetto di riflessioni e appelli nel > periodo della pandemia, sia pure in una prospettiva più specifica, > https://www.aiucd.it/lettera-sulla-didattica-a-distanza/ > > https://www.key4biz.it/il-senato-usa-zoom-linteresse-dello-stato-va-al-di-l… > > https://www.roars.it/teledidattica-proprietaria-e-privata-o-libera-e-pubbli… > sarebbe anche possibile riformulare tutto in una prospettiva più ampia. > Potrei perfino proporre l'idea di un simile appello al consiglio > direttivo AISA - anche perché critiche di questo tipo sono diffuse da > tempo fra chi si interessa di scienza aperta (qui, per esempio, un testo > del 2019 https://osf.io/preprints/lissa/58yhb_v1) > Però, prima di muovermi, devo capire se a Nexa, a cui è stato > inizialmente proposto, interessa o no l'iniziativa. Se interessasse a > Nexa, aderirei volentieri al suo appello. > In attesa di indicazioni. > MCP > >

1 0