Esposito Elena

The use of algorithmic prediction in insurance is regarded as the beginning of a new era, because it promises to personalise insurance policies and premiums on the basis of individual behaviour and level of risk. The core idea is that the price of the policy would no longer refer to the calculated uncertainty of a pool of policyholders, with the consequence that everyone would have to pay only for her real exposure to risk. For insurance, however, uncertainty is not only a problem – shared uncertainty is a resource. The availability of individual risk information could undermine the principle of risk-pooling and risk-spreading on which insurance is based. The article examines this disruptive change first by exploring the possible consequences of the use of predictive algorithms to set insurance premiums. Will it endanger the principle of mutualisation of risks, producing new forms of discrimination and exclusion from coverage? In a second step, we analyse how the relationship between the insurer and the policyholder changes when the customer knows that the company has voluminous, and continuously updated, data about her real behaviour.

The debate on the right to be forgotten on Google involves the relationship between human information processing and digital processing by algorithms. The specificity of digital memory is not so much its often discussed inability to forget. What distinguishes digital memory is, instead, its ability to process information without understanding. Algorithms only work with data without remembering or forgetting. Merely calculating, algorithms manage to produce significant results not because they operate in an intelligent way, but because they “parasitically” exploit the intelligence, the memory, and the attribution of meaning by human actors. The specificity of algorithmic processing makes it possible to bypass the paradox of remembering to forget, which up to now blocked any human-based forgetting technique. If you decide to forget some memory, the most immediate effect is drawing attention to it, thereby activating remembering. Working differently from human intelligence, however, algorithms can implement, for the first time, the classical insight that it might be possible to reinforce forgetting not by erasing memories but by multiplying them. After discussing several projects on the web which implicitly adopt this approach, the article concludes by raising some deeper problems posed when algorithms use data and metadata to produce information that cannot be attributed to any human being.

This paper proposes an extended idea of critique, bypassing the paradox of a critique of critique. It reconstructs the semantics of critique from ancient commentary to autonomous interpretation, identifying the blindness of critical theory in the claim to detect crises and to indicate how to overcome them. The critique of critique is achieved not by rejecting critique but by moving to second-order observation. In this understanding, critique does not refuse what is normal but observes it as improbable. Critical observation is understood as reflection on normality, its opposite, and its alternatives. The debate on risk society is presented and commented on as an example.

Our society is often understood and discussed as a society of non-contemporaneity —an issue that undoubtedly corresponds to a widespread and disturbing feeling in today's society. Both at personal level and in communicative contexts one often has the impression of an interlacement and a contrast among different rhythms, temporal horizons, durations and terms, and the result is usually a sort of pressure and a sense of inadequacy. It seems to me, however, that the difficulties we have to face don't depend so much on the fact that we belong to a culture of not-contemporaneity: such cultures have existed, we can describe them and we can reconstruct their relationship with time, but they didn't have the problems of disorientation that seem to torment us today. On the contrary: we have them because our culture is rather a culture of contemporaneity, and this produces problems of synchronisation and a complexity of temporal relations we still cannot adequately deal with. German Unsere Gesellschaft wird oft als eine Gesellschaft der Ungleichzeitigkeit verstanden und diskutiert – eine Problematik, die zweifellos mit einer weitverbreiteten Verstörung in der heutigen Gesellschaft korrespondiert. Sowohl auf einer persönlichen Ebene als auch in kommunikativen Kontexten hat man oft den Eindruck eines Mit- und Gegeneinanders verschiedener Rhythmen, Zeithorizonte, Dauern und Enden, deren Ergebnis gewöhnlich eine Art Druck und ein Gefühl der Unzulänglichkeit sind. Es scheint mir aber, dass die Schwierigkeiten, denen wir uns zu stellen haben, nicht so sehr von unserer Verbundenheit mit einer Kultur der Ungleichzeitigkeit abhängen: Solche Kulturen haben bereits existiert, wir können sie beschreiben und ihre Zeitverhältnisse rekonstruieren, und doch haben sie nicht die Desorientierung erfahren, die uns heute quält. Im Gegenteil: Die heutigen Schwierigkeiten entspringen einer Kultur der Gleichzeitigkeit, die Probleme der Synchronisierung und komplexe Zeitverhältnisse mit sich bringt, mit denen wir immer noch nicht adäquat umgehen können

A partire dall’ipotesi di una trasformazione dell’idea di modello nell’età moderna, il saggio esamina le forme dell’imitazione: dall’imitazione dei grandi autori del passato al privilegio della creatività e della produzione del nuovo. Questi cambiamenti vengono correlati con le corrispondenti trasformazioni della struttura della società e della sua semantica, in particolare con la preferenza per il nuovo tipica dei mass media. Ci si chiede quale ruolo possa ancora avere l’imitazione, e si parla della moda come peculiare combinazione di originalità e imitazione: una paradossale imitazione della novità, che cambia di continuo ed esige un’inedita riflessività sociale e temporale centrata sul presente.Starting from the transformations in the idea of “model” in modern times, the text discusses forms of imitation: from the imitation of auctores to the search for creativity and the production of novelties, from repetition tu surprise . These changes will be connected with corresponding trasformations in the structure of society and its semantics, and particularly with the partiality to novelty typical of the mass media. The question is then, what role can imitation still play? The form of fashion will be discussed as a peculiar combination of originality and imitation: a paradoxical imitation of novelty, that is always changing and shifts the time reference towards contemporaneity. This requires an unprecedented social and temporal reflexivity

Das Erleben der Welt kann nur unter der Voraussetzung ihrer Tatsächlichkeit erfolgen. Dazu muss ihre Konstruiertheit hinter ontischen Verweisen verschwinden. Erfolgt die erste Zurichtung der Welt kontingent, ist sie doch nicht beliebig. Die Konstruktion hat notwendige Folgen als Tatsachen. Darauf setzen gesellschaftliche Debatten in Politik, Wirtschaft oder Massenmedien, die Eingang auch in die Wissenschaft finden. Gelingt die Erinnerung an die anfängliche Konstruktion nicht, erfolgt Reflexion nur noch verkürzt und unzureichend. Es kommt darauf an, den sozial konstruierten Charakter der Welt in ihrer ontischen Wirkung zu begreifen

The paper deals with the changes in the sense of synchronicity and simultaneity connected with the transformations in the structure of society. It examines and criticizes the modern concept of absolute chronology, understood as an objective temporal reference common to all observers. This notion is compared with the relative and flexible (but neither objective nor generalizable) forms of synchronization of different societies. The paper discusses finally the hypothesis that contemporary society is realizing a more complex and recursive form of temporality, that questions the modern ideal of synchronicity. This temporality is connected with recent developments in telematics