Letters
Letters to the editor •
The ‘attacks on Ranucci’s reputation’ and confusion within the broad coalition
Who wrote to the editor, Claudio Cerasa
12 AUG 26
Translated by AI
Photo: Ansa
To the Editor – There are attacks fuelled by dynamite and attacks fuelled by affection.
Michele Magno
The classic estimation errors.
To the editor – To claim that the attack was entirely his doing, without Sigfrido Ranucci’s knowledge, will they tell us that Valter Lavitola is Mubarak’s nephew?
Giuliano Cazzola
Perfect, Stefano Esposito: “Ranucci is experiencing first-hand the style of journalism that made him famous in this wretched country”.
To the Editor – I read Franco Lo Piparo’s article, “AI, Consciousness and the Logos in the Gospel of John”, with interest and would like to offer a few observations. In the early 1600s, Descartes discovered that thought possesses, for the thinker, a distinctive certainty: the famous ‘cogito’. Since then, philosophy has been exploring the theme of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world and with machines. All this intellectual output has developed a vast repertoire of concepts that explore the complexity of the subject. Then came Alan Turing, who devised a test to determine whether a machine is intelligent: if a human, whilst exchanging written messages with the machine, can be convinced that the machine is another human being, then the machine is intelligent. It has won the ‘imitation game’ and is therefore conscious; those who need to recognise it do so. Because, as the article rightly points out, ultimately it is we who recognise one another as intelligent (and conscious), and we do so on the basis of our interactions. It seems to me that the author adopts the Turing test as a criterion for consciousness, but I believe this discussion needs to be broadened. For philosophers since Turing, this has precisely been the subject of debate – indeed, one of the central themes of the philosophy of mind: whether the test is a reliable indicator of consciousness… and we have had John Searle’s ‘Chinese room’ thought experiment, Thomas Nagel’s reflections on other minds (what is it like to be a bat?), and so on. The question remains unresolved. The challenge posed by AI to our conviction – or prejudice – that we hold a monopoly on intelligence is not new to the philosophy of mind, particularly in relation to the debate on consciousness, to which I have alluded. The novelty of generative AI lies not in producing a new answer, but in putting theory into practice… machines are beginning to be produced that might be capable of passing the Turing test, or at least of attempting to do so. The question remains. And what, then, is consciousness? In the philosophical debate, there are at least three components: the self (the subject), intentionality, and subjective qualities (qualia). Which of these does AI possess? Or, to put it briefly: what is it like to be an artificial intelligence? For now, it seems we can say: absolutely nothing. It may well be that a new type of intelligence is emerging, one that is different and perhaps superior – at least in certain respects – to human intelligence. But linguistic output, in itself, is not sufficient to address the issue of consciousness. Even in Blade Runner there is the Turing test, and how convincing those characters are – but bear in mind: the replicants have bodies, desires, joys and sorrows. Thank you for the intellectual stimulation provided by a truly interesting article. Kind regards.
Francesco Cirri
To the Editor - A few months ago, you published a very brief letter from me in which, referring to the initiatives by many Italian universities to boycott Israel and ostracise those who do not fall in line with the pro-Palestinian clamour, I wondered – ironically – whether, in future, university lecturers might be asked to take an anti-Zionist oath, along the lines of the fascist oath required during the twenty years of Fascist rule. Unfortunately, on reading Pierluigi Battista’s article, I was saddened to discover that at Sapienza University of Rome, my scenario is no longer a paradox.
Andrea Cerini
To the Editor – In his piece of 11 August, Carmelo Caruso had a flash of inspiration that only the search for a bit of cool relief in a sweltering summer can provide: to solve the conundrum of the PD primaries, all one needs to do is choose between two foreign leaders, Mette Frederiksen and Pedro Sánchez. The decisive criterion: immigration. A proposal so surreal that, by contrast, it seems more lucid than the discussions that have been holding the PD hostage to itself for months. Because, let’s face it: when it comes to the primaries – and everything surrounding them – the PD is stuck on the usual existential trio (“whether to hold them”, “how to hold them”, “with whom to hold them”), to the point where the only way out seems to be exporting the problem by importing candidates. European primaries, then, with polling booths complete with signage and multilingual ballot papers, and volunteers trained to pronounce ‘Frederiksen’ correctly. For Sánchez, it’s simpler. And here comes the juiciest detail: in a hypothetical Frederiksen–Sánchez run-off, I’m convinced that progressive voters would choose the Dane before they’d even finished their coffee. For sound political reasons (immigration, I repeat, handled excellently by the Danish Prime Minister), but also due to a national Pavlovian reflex: faced with a choice between a Nordic candidate and a Mediterranean one, the average Italian votes for the Nordic candidate. “They’re serious, efficient, they don’t argue, they don’t call half-hour press conferences just to say that a debate is needed.” An anthropological belief more solid than the identity-based loyalty to a party. The result: a Danish leader called upon to lead an Italian coalition that can’t even decide whether to hold primaries, let alone how. A perfect metaphor for the state of confusion within the broad coalition. With this provocation, Caruso has produced satire as it should be: a paradox that sheds light on an uncomfortable truth. The PD and the ‘broad coalition’ risk a short circuit without even realising it.
Alberto Bianchi
To the Editor – Among the inexplicable events of my life, a few years ago I found myself appointed chairman of the Venice Casino for reasons that still elude me today. I happened to go for dinner with the manager of the said Casino at a restaurant that is still of excellent quality today. At the end, I asked for the bill, but with some embarrassment the owner told me that “it’s all right”. I did not understand and refused to go along with it. I discovered that, as well as high rollers (who, in casinos all over the world, enjoy all manner of perks at the house’s expense), the privilege was also extended to senior management. Naturally, this charming custom came to an end that very evening – at least during my presidency. What happened afterwards, I cannot say. Since then, a cordial friendship has developed with the owner, an intelligent man with a great sense of humour. I go there often, and we always end up asking the same question: ‘But did he actually pay?’ With much hesitation – and, I suspect, some inevitable code of silence – the answer is overwhelmingly ‘no’. Just think of the last 50 years of Venice’s various administrations. It’s all too easy to point the finger at the Socialists, but there were a few serious Communists, a few cheerful Christian Democrats, not to mention the Mose project and so on and so forth. The issue is always the same: who pays the bill at the restaurant. I think it’s one of Italy’s great issues. It’s particularly acute in Rome. Who paid the bill at Lavitola’s restaurant? Who paid at Delmastro’s restaurant? If a good journalist goes out for dinner with a potential source, what should they be worried about? Paying the bill. Then verifying the story.
Sandro Parenzo