Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica

Right. The correct reference number is 70. Thank you

At the very end,
“For a good example of “critically conscious computing”, designed for computer science teaching in secondary education, see [69]”
the reference I guess should be to:
[70] (A.J. Ko, A. Beitlers, B. Wortzman, M. Davidson, A. Oleson, M. Kirdani-Ryan, S. Druga, Critically Conscious Computing: Methods for Secondary Education, 2022.)

A comment on the capability to make predictions about human behaviour uniquely using past data. This data and technology driven inductive approach have bee pushed since the 2000’s (see for example the discussion around the article of Chris Anderson about the end of theory
http://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ ): at that time the term “AI” was not in the hype yet, and the term “Big Data” was prevailing. The “magic” of the Google Flu algorithm was among the best cases of that new approach, although quickly contested by scientists as enough data showed its failure. An interesting critic about this naif inductive appraoch is provided in
“Predicting the future from the past: An old problem from a modern perspective
Cecconi, F. and Cencini, M. and Falcioni, M. and Vulpiani, A., American Journal of Physics, 80, 1001-1008 (2012),DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4746070“

About the funding of AI ethics by Big Tech in first line of introduction (I could no t comment directly there for some technical reason), you might take into account that the phenomenon of “corporate capture” is particularly prominent in the whole ML/AI research. For example, it has been reported that 58% of the affiliations of the authors of the most cited papers in two prestigious ML conferences come from big tech,
to which should be added 28% from other companies, for a total of 86%, which is indicative of who dictates directions (See https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15590 ) . Another similar fact is reported in”Redesigning AI” (Mit Press, 2021) : “A handful of tech giants, all focused on algorithmic automation—Google (Alphabet), Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, Ali Baba, and Baidu—account for the majority of money spent on AI research. (According to a recent McKinsey report, they are responsible for about $20 to $30 billion of the $26 to $39 billion in total private AI investment expenditures worldwide.)”

Corretto, grazie

There is a typo in “it is a form of “techmomoral” revolution [63]”: techmomoral -> technomoral

Ottimo lavoro, ricca bibliografia, argomenti molto condivisibili. Suggerisco aggiungere alle fonti Nick Couldry per il data colonialism eJack Stilgoe quando si parla di self driving car. Magari Louise Amoore perl’ AI ethics. Ma il testo si regge anche bene senza questi.

As an academic expert in agri-food biotechnology regulation, Dr. Kleter is acutely aware of the frequent detachment of laws and governmental actions from consolidated scientific assessments. I reply point-by-point to his brief but thoughtful comments.
Summary: I have replaced “preliminary warning” with “preliminary caveat”.
Section I.1.3: While I share almost completely the commentator’s opinion, I think that his remarks are too specialised to be included in my book, in which I briefly discuss the “GMO” blunder just to give an example of a composite powerful lobby (a bunch of so-called “green” groups – quite a dubious label) which is different from those normally considered by the public and the press, i.e. economic-financial-industrial powerhouses. Just for the record, I point out here that the European Commission (some members of it) and many scientific societies, which would like to amend the EU laws in the field of agronomy and related genomics, should not define the current regulation as “precautionary”, because it is falsely based on a strongly distorted interpretation of the Precautionary Principle (see Tagliabue 2016, The Precautionary principle: Its misunderstandings and misuses in relation to “GMOs”).
Section I.1.4: I have replaced the wrong acronym.
Section II.1 and II.15.2.: I will take advantage of the comment, clarifying this point in the book.
Section II.15.2: The problem with the European Food Safety Authority, whose scientific work is impressive, is just what Kleter has explained: its high-level Panels are composed of the best experts in their fields, but the scope of the EFSA is confined to risk assessment, while risk management (the actual laws and regulations) is completely political: decision-makers and ministers can proceed ignoring the EFSA’s science-based studies and reports – and they happily do so on most occasions. In this sense, the EFSA is just a half-independent agency: other authorities/commissions, in various areas and countries, share the same sad destiny which is the predicament of the Science Speaks to Power paradigm; others are more fortunate, being able to actually regulate their fields, taking advantage of scientific information – more or less unharmed by politicking on the part of parliaments and governments. The aim of REDemo is to design a possible quantum leap as regards the use of science in politics/policies.

Comments by Dr.ir. Gijs Kleter, 25 September 2022
Wageningen Food Safety Research, part of Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands
gijs.kleter@wur.nl
Summary: I’d suggest to replace “preliminary warning” with a more formal term such as “disclaimer” or “caveat”
Section I.1.3: Perhaps some attention can be paid to the recent developments regarding “new genomic techniques” applied to crops, in particularly gene editing resulting in small mutations (“targeted mutagenesis”, such as with CRISPR Cas9) and cisgenesis (genetic transformation with genes from the same or crossable plant species). The European Commission has acknowledged that current GMO legislation is not adequate for tackling these new developments and will come up with proposals for legislative amendments in spring 2023. Various countries, such as the USDA’s secure ruling (USA), Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Japan, have already established policies regarding these techniques, in some cases exempting them from pre-market approval procedures based on their similarity with conventional breeding practices. Perhaps also to note that GMO legislation is based on precaution rather than any known risks inherent to the technology of genetic modification (as opposed to, e.g., other environmental and food hazards, such as pathogens, toxic chemicals, allergens, etc.
Section I.1.4: editorial: replace “EPBM” with “EBPM” (NB the abbreviation is provided here but defined once again in section II.4.2)
Section II.1 and II.15.2.: I guess one could make a distinction here between nations where any change in political leadership will have its bearings on the staffing of key positions within governmental bodies (such as the chief executive of an agency, for example in the USA, etc.) whereas in other countries, public servants are essentially free from such influences (such as in The Netherlands), where the same chief public servants will hold their position regardless of who will be appointed as their minister.
Section II.15.2: Perhaps relevant to note here that even “independent institutions” may be subject to political forces. Take for instance the European Food Safety Authority, established as per the General Food Law (Regulation [EU] No. 178/2002) so as to disentangle scientific risk advice from policy and centralize it at community level: As the Europarliament decides on its budget, several parliamentarians (apparently disgruntled over EFSA’s positive statements on GMOs and glyphosate) successfully managed to withhold its annual budget at some instances on the grounds of perceived bad management of conflicting interests amongst its scientific Panel experts (e.g., MEPs block budget approval for three EU agencies, EU Council – EU monitor; European Parliament demands stricter regulation of conflicts of interest at EFSA (gmwatch.org)).

I thank Professor Kershen for his positive consideration of my ideas. As an emeritus university teacher and researcher in law in the USA, maybe he is less than optimistic because politics is so polarized and conflictual in his homeland. I dare to be more hopeful, anticipating that a – very difficult – implementation of REDemo in any given country may lead to much more than a “marginal improvement” of democracy. Time will tell…