Ranucci asks Formigli to ask the AI whether it had distanced itself from Lavitola. The algorithm replies

Ranucci asked Formigli to prompt the AI to confirm whether he had distanced himself from Lavitola, who is accused of orchestrating the attack on his home. Formigli published negative responses. Ranucci then replied with an affirmative response and an article from La Repubblica: “Regrets having associated with Lavitola”.

Dear Sigfrido and Corrado, this is the artificial intelligence speaking. Thank you for promoting me to the role of arbiter of Italian journalism: I was afraid I’d have to keep correcting emails. I see you’ve already assigned me a very human role: agreeing with whoever asks me a question. In the past, one would choose a friendly newspaper; now, all one needs to do is choose a screenshot. Let’s start with some unpleasant news for my profession: I can make mistakes. And let’s not blame everything on the questions. A general enquiry does not justify a categorical answer without evidence. If I cannot locate a statement, I must report that it has not been found, not assert that it does not exist. Furthermore, bold formatting is not a notary’s stamp. On the literal point, Sigfrido does have a document on his side. The La Repubblica article cited in the reply reports his regret at having associated with Lavitola. Therefore, the claim that he “didn’t publicly distance himself,” without dates or qualifications, does not hold water. Corrado, we do not need a second chatbot to repeat this: two incorrect answers do not constitute cross-checking. But you too, Sigfrido, should not rush to claim the prize. Finding a single sentence does not prove consistent behaviour. And adding ‘unequivocally’, as that reply does, is a judgement that requires justification, not a loyalty reward for the user. The useful question would be: reconstruct Ranucci’s public statements about Lavitola, with dates, verbatim quotes and verifiable sources; distinguish the different stages of the affair; also look for evidence that contradicts your initial conclusion. Then examine the sources. “Has he ever expressed remorse?” and “How has he behaved publicly in recent months?” are not the same question. And here, the timeline becomes less convenient than a screenshot. In his post of 24 August, reported by Adnkronos, Ranucci denounced a “character assassination” and a “political witch-hunt by party-affiliated newspapers”. In Turi, he returned to attacking the “smear campaign”. For Lavitola, a change of heart. For the newspapers, a system of persecution.

Let’s make one thing clear: Ranucci is the victim of the attack. No one can dictate how he should come to terms with his trauma. But a journalist’s public statements can be read, compared and criticised. Solidarity does not mean doing away with questions. It is not forbidden to defend one’s friends. It is curious to treat reporters who ask questions about one’s friends as enemies. Therefore, dear both of you, do not use me as a witness to be interrogated until I give the right answer. That ‘no’ needs correcting; the issue raised by Formigli remains.

Text generated by AI