Poor clarity and precise falsehoods can condition social fears and impose themes and questions.
The advancement of an extensive ethical debate is the best way to prevent digital innovation from becoming a means of domination.
After months in which the media have made ChatGPT a living representation of the "spirit of the times", I think it can be said that the more or less willfully implausible, erroneous or blatantly false news has created a fog that seems to suffocate the real understanding of the extent of the so-called “Generative AI”.
This opacity would be enough to warn everyone about how the so-called post-truth is not behind us but uses the theme of "Artificial Intelligence" and, far worse, its confused knowledge by the general public as a tool for controlling opinions .
In itself ChatGPT, as several authors have clearly stated, is not something unexpected, unexpected or disruptive among those who deal with AI professionally.
Without diminishing its innovative scope, what differentiates its global impact is the clamor that has been skilfully built around it.
"Around" there is the centuries-old idea, so easy to transform into fear, that the machine surpasses man in what is considered typical of our species: thought. From there, easy avalanche, all the worst that can be feared.

It is responsible innovation that makes homo sapiens more and more
Michael von Liechtenstein on geopolitics and artificial intelligence

ChatGPT speaks, albeit in writing, like the human, if not better, but it is not a "true thought"

ChatGPT she speaks, although today in writing, like the human who questions her.
Indeed, sometimes better than the latter, given that it can produce texts by imitating the style of this or that era, of a famous writer or of a particular type of communication (technical, popular, simplifying…), even adapting to the age and presumed knowledge of the addressees.
But he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Just as the first forms of AI distinguished the images of cats from all the others without knowing what a cat really is, without being aware of it, escaping from the "pseudo-sentient" machine both concepts that assume the use of senses (the consistency of hair of a feline) and those that derive from emotional foundations (the pleasure that many people feel when they perceive the cat in your lap purring as you caress it).
There is more. From the point of view of the structural complexity of the alleged "reasoning" behind the texts produced by ChatGPT, it should be noted that already at the end of the last century, through AI, solutions were produced capable of giving formal proof of mathematical theorems, a problem certainly more "superhuman" than that of constructing texts regarding a predetermined theme, all the more without the burden of guaranteeing the truthfulness of the information.
When this happened, few people talked about it, although the newspapers of the time reported the announcements about it, above all because they came from the "usual suspects", the most famous American companies in the IT world.
However, the perception of AI danger is much easier to trigger if lexical ones replace mathematical tools.
The numbers seem to most people aseptic, distant, not directly capable of acting in the formation of thought, that instead being expressed in words.

Here's how Google's Artificial Intelligence wins every challenge
Thus beat the drums of the First World War of the AI

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”, from the Gospel according to John

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” is the incipit of the Gospel of St. John, thus clarifying in a single sentence how close and indissoluble the relationship between word and intelligence, between word and creation, between word and will is in our culture.
Word, many words, text… therefore thought. Fanning the fire of the thinking machine to create fear always works! And it is an excellent system for influencing questions, a true engine of social control much more than the answers.
Read, study, learn, memorize, know, understand, use and many other verbs that have to do with humans today are used for machines, lacking as we are specific expressions for automatons.
If you look at technologies that you have been dealing with for the longest time, you can easily appreciate the lexical evolution: of the car you don't say "it's thirsty" but "it's in reserve", of the washing machine that doesn't start you don't usually think " she has nothing to eat” but “perhaps she has no electricity” and so on.
For digital automata this is still difficult, above all because they perform (or appear to perform) more sophisticated actions than drinking or eating.
Whether you call it a "toaster", as in the example of Luciano Floridi, or note its remoteness from any will typical of Maurizio Ferraris' biological "beaver", the digital automaton equipped with AI is capable of results which, if achieved by a human we will define fruit of intelligence.
From this begins the confusion, the doubt, the fear so well embodied not so much by ChatGPT as by its (perhaps) improvised bards, however willy-nilly gears of fear towards "the machine".
All that suspicion should rather be towards the bad guys, who are not lacking, and even towards our entire species.

The Newspeak of Facebook (or of… “Artificial Dementia”)
Thus Artificial Intelligence at the service of Sauber Alfa Romeo

The (protected) issues of privacy are only the tip of the iceberg of the many legal issues surrounding AI

If national and supranational laws already protect privacy in some way today (always perfectible, always the subject of continuous negotiation between social law and the advantage of economic operators), how to do with other issues or, simply, ways of accessing digital?
If you will talk to an automaton to find out more about the result of the blood test by asking if “Is cholesterol above 300 dangerous?”, will we really only have to worry about privacy?
And if that answers "Depends. What are the other values ​​of the analysis?”, what is happening? What dialectical space is filled?
The silent acquiescence towards the car immediately makes it credible, whether simple or sophisticated: just as one does not think of the road sign that warns us that the city to which one is heading is 10 km away, so is trust in something it even dialogues, responds, and seems to intercede between us and knowledge.
So, what to do if systems of this kind are used to create false news, that is to give existence to what "is not", words that do not describe real facts but nonetheless placed in such a way as to be credible?
Without news reliability, where does the irreplaceable role of journalism end up as a barrier to demand controlled by any form of power, to the topic brought to social attention to distance it from others?
The power of control of the interrogation, of the request destined to understand the reason for the decisions seems to fade slowly, with the evolution of automatons and the lowering of the critical power of those who listen to them.

In a conference the opportunities and risks of AI applications
From Artificial Intelligence a decisive boost to cryptocurrencies?

A guard that must necessarily be kept up on a global scale, such as for climate change

It is naive to think that these and analogous problems can find solutions only in positive law, in the sanctioned obligation, in the creation of a crime, in establishing the forms in which it can be proved and so on.
Existing does not guarantee resistance to this kind of answers, whether present or future: too much speed, too many interests at stake, too easy (and already seen) to evade them simply by moving an office or a server from a country to another.
Although a "dumping" of this type is always imminent, addressing the issue on a global scale appears to be the only way to keep one's guard up, exactly as happens with climate change.
A dialogue of indefinite period must be born between ethics and the law, understood as ethics the set of values ​​that are shared by the largest possible number of people on the planet.
You don't start from scratch. There are well-articulated studies, conducted by different groups in different parts of the world to define the characteristics that a reliable AI must have and these topics must be raised daily in an extended, truly social and non-elitist debate that takes the topic and addresses it both the advantages and the possible manipulations.

GPT: what are the true potential and what we should expect
More efficient genetic repairs with Artificial Intelligence

From the unidirectional “bad television teacher” to the new digital “participating viewers”.

Further back in time is the long debate about “bad television teacher”, from the homonymous title of the essay by the Austrian philosopher naturalized British Karl Popper, who made so much clear and who can act as a point of reference, even knowing that the digital innovation of now and in the future is no longer a "form of communication" but a perennial agent of mobilization and bilateral direction, of which people are an active part, not just spectators.
It is with the ethical debate that one can influence the law, make it change, interpret it, oppose it, establish when it goes beyond the necessity for which it was wanted or, on the contrary, is below what makes it useful.
However caught up in today, we must immediately understand that it is a long-term struggle, with clear ends but specific objectives that change and will continue to change.
And if the roar that caused ChatGPT is used to increase attention towards the operator rather than fear towards the vehicle, then it will have served some purpose.

ChatGPT: “I, Artificial Intelligence, will explain Innovando.News…”
Artificial intelligence and conflicts in a collection of unpublished essays