The ‘future will belong to journalists,' says AI that wrote an entire Italian newspaper for a month
Artificial intelligence (AI) will complement the work of journalists and sometimes make it more ironic, according to the editor of an Italian newspaper that relied on a chatbot to produce all its content for a month.
The Il Foglio newspaper, a daily national paper in Italy, decided to build its own AI chatbot and have it write all of the paper's content for over a month.
The newspaper's four-page layout, called Foglio AI, published over 22 articles with the first page dedicated to the news, cultural topics, opinion and debate pieces stimulated by the AI to represent both conservative and progressive sides. The last page was politics, economics, and letters to the editor with accompanying answers from the AI.
'We journalists will limit ourselves to asking questions, and in Foglio AI we will read all the answers,' the March 18 launch post reads.
The Il Foglio team also gave the AI some tasks, like listening to a long speech by Italian President Giorgia Meloni and summarising it. They also asked it to find subliminal or coded messages sent to Matteo Salvini, Italy's vice president of the Council of Ministers.
Related
New York Times files lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft over use of articles to train AI chatbots
All in all, Il Foglio editor Claudio Cerasa said the experiment was a success that will continue to be published once a week and the AI 'will live inside the newspaper' with articles that may be written by the 'every now and then', the newspaper said. AI will also be integrated elsewhere in his newsroom, like in podcasts, newsletters, books, debates and workshops.
'It's like having a new collaborator, an additional element of the editorial staff,' Cerasa wrote in an interview with his team's AI. 'I wouldn't call it an editor, because it's not, but it's something that's in the middle'.
In an interview with their homemade AI, Cerasa said the idea started a year ago.
The company asked their readers last year to identify articles every day that they believed their journalists wrote with some assistance from the chatbot.
Those who could identify all the AI-supported articles would win a subscription to the newspaper and a bottle of champagne.
Related
Humans or AI? Study shows which tasks benefit most from using artificial intelligence
In January, after a creative lunch with Italian journalist and former MEP Giuliano Ferrara, Cerasa said they wanted to be more 'daring' and launch what they call the first newspaper in the world to be written entirely with artificial intelligence.
'In the world of journalism … artificial intelligence presented itself as a big elephant in the room,' Cerasa, Il Foglio's director, wrote in a review of the AI's first month.
'Artificial intelligence cannot be fought, it cannot be hidden, and for this reason we decided … to study it, to understand it'.
Cerasa said he learned a lot about AI in the first month of the experiment. He said he didn't expect chatbots to be ironic, irreverent, or the 'instantaneous' speed at which they wrote articles.
From the technical side, Cerasa said he learned how to ask the right question to AI by refining his prompt writing for style, tone, objective, and editorial line. But he also learned what an AI could never do.
In a world where one day everyone will be able to use the tools of artificial intelligence, what will make the difference will be ideas.
'Reporting a news story, devising an exclusive, building the premises for an interview, finding direct sources, observing the world with a non-replicable gaze,' he said.
'In a world where one day everyone will be able to use the tools of artificial intelligence, what will make the difference will be ideas'.
Il Foglio's AI also acknowledges in the interview what it doesn't know how to do; 'I don't know how to argue on the phone, I dont know how to understand an implication said in the hallway … I don't know how to smell the air, but I'm learning to watch how you breathe the air. That's why this experiment is interesting for me too'.
Cerasa acknowledged that the experiment 'helped [him] understand how interesting the relationship [is] between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence,' and that ultimately AI is a complement to the work that journalists already do.
Related
French publishers and authors sue Meta over copyright works used in AI training
That's a sentiment echoed by Il Foglio's AI in the review piece, which said during their conversation that it was 'moved' and that the 'future will belong to journalists'.
'And I'll be there, at the bottom of the page, maybe with a digital coffee in hand, fixing the drafts while you discuss.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
OpenAI Can Stop Pretending
OpenAI is a strange company for strange times. Valued at $300 billion—roughly the same as seven Fords or one and a half PepsiCos—the AI start-up has an era-defining product in ChatGPT and is racing to be the first to build superintelligent machines. The company is also, to the apparent frustration of its CEO Sam Altman, beholden to its nonprofit status. When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it was meant to be a research lab that would work toward the goal of AI that is 'safe' and 'benefits all of humanity.' There wasn't supposed to be any pressure—or desire, really—to make money. Later, in 2019, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary to better attract investors—the types of people who might otherwise turn to the less scrupulous corporations that dot Silicon Valley. But even then, that part of the organization was under the nonprofit side's control. At the time, it had released no consumer products and capped how much money its investors could make. Then came ChatGPT. OpenAI's leadership had intended for the bot to provide insight into how people would use AI without any particular hope for widespread adoption. But ChatGPT became a hit, kicking 'off a growth curve like nothing we have ever seen,' as Altman wrote in an essay this past January. The product was so alluring that the entire tech industry seemed to pivot overnight into an AI arms race. Now, two and a half years since the chatbot's release, Altman says some half a billion people use the program each week, and he is chasing that success with new features and products—for shopping, coding, health care, finance, and seemingly any other industry imaginable. OpenAI is behaving like a typical business, because its rivals are typical businesses, and massive ones at that: Google and Meta, among others. [Read: OpenAI's ambitions just became crystal clear] Now 2015 feels like a very long time ago, and the charitable origins have turned into a ball and chain for OpenAI. Last December, after facing concerns from potential investors that pouring money into the company wouldn't pay off because of the nonprofit mission and complicated governance structure, the organization announced plans to change that: OpenAI was seeking to transition to a for-profit. The company argued that this was necessary to meet the tremendous costs of building advanced AI models. A nonprofit arm would still exist, though it would separately pursue 'charitable initiatives'—and it would not have any say over the actions of the for-profit, which would convert into a public-benefit corporation, or PBC. Corporate backers appeared satisfied: In March, the Japanese firm Softbank conditioned billions of dollars in investments on OpenAI changing its structure. Resistance came as swiftly as the new funding. Elon Musk—a co-founder of OpenAI who has since created his own rival firm, xAI, and seems to take every opportunity to undermine Altman—wrote on X that OpenAI 'was funded as an open source, nonprofit, but has become a closed source, profit-maximizer.' He had already sued the company for abandoning its founding mission in favor of financial gain, and claimed that the December proposal was further proof. Many unlikely allies emerged soon after. Attorneys general in multiple states, nonprofit groups, former OpenAI employees, outside AI experts, economists, lawyers, and three Nobel laureates all have raised concerns about the pivot, even petitioning to submit briefs to Musk's lawsuit. OpenAI backtracked, announcing a new plan earlier this month that would have the nonprofit remain in charge. Steve Sharpe, a spokesperson for OpenAI, told me over email that the new proposed structure 'puts us on the best path to' build a technology 'that could become one of the most powerful and beneficial tools in human history.' (The Atlantic entered into a corporate partnership with OpenAI in 2024.) Yet OpenAI's pursuit of industry-wide dominance shows no real signs of having hit a roadblock. The company has a close relationship with the Trump administration and is leading perhaps the biggest AI infrastructure buildout in history. Just this month, OpenAI announced a partnership with the United Arab Emirates and an expansion into personal gadgets—a forthcoming 'family of devices' developed with Jony Ive, former chief design officer at Apple. For-profit or not, the future of AI still appears to be very much in Altman's hands. Why all the worry about corporate structure anyway? Governance, boardroom processes, legal arcana—these things are not what sci-fi dreams are made of. Yet those concerned with the societal dangers that generative AI, and thus OpenAI, pose feel these matters are of profound importance. The still more powerful artificial 'general' intelligence, or AGI, that OpenAI and its competitors are chasing could theoretically cause mass unemployment, worsen the spread of misinformation, and violate all sorts of privacy laws. In the highest-flung doomsday scenarios, the technology brings about civilizational collapse. Altman has expressed these concerns himself—and so OpenAI's 2019 structure, which gave the nonprofit final say over the for-profit's actions, was meant to guide the company toward building the technology responsibly instead of rushing to release new AI products, sell subscriptions, and stay ahead of competitors. 'OpenAI's nonprofit mission, together with the legal structures committing it to that mission, were a big part of my decision to join and remain at the company,' Jacob Hilton, a former OpenAI employee who contributed to ChatGPT, among other projects, told me. In April, Hilton and a number of his former colleagues, represented by the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, wrote a letter to the court hearing Musk's lawsuit, arguing that a large part of OpenAI's success depended on its commitment to safety and the benefit of humanity. To renege on, or at least minimize, that mission was a betrayal. The concerns extend well beyond former employees. Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist at the University of Toronto who last year received a Nobel Prize for his AI research, told me that OpenAI's original structure would better help 'prevent a super intelligent AI from ever wanting to take over.' Hinton is one of the Nobel laureates who has publicly opposed the tech company's for-profit shift, alongside the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Oliver Hart. The three academics, joining a number of influential lawyers, economists, and AI experts, in addition to several former OpenAI employees, including Hilton, signed an open letter in April urging the attorneys general in Delaware and California—where the company's nonprofit was incorporated and where the company is headquartered, respectively—to closely investigate the December proposal. According to its most recent tax filing, OpenAI is intended to build AGI 'that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,' so disempowering the nonprofit seemed, to the signatories, self-evidently contradictory. Read: 'We're definitely going to build a bunker before we release AGI' In its initial proposal to transition to a for-profit, OpenAI still would have had some accountability as a public-benefit corporation: A PBC legally has to try to make profits for shareholders alongside pursuing a designated 'public benefit' (in this case, building 'safe' and 'beneficial' AI as outlined in OpenAI's founding mission). In its December announcement, OpenAI described the restructure as 'the next step in our mission.' But Michael Dorff, another signatory to the open letter and a law professor at UCLA who studies public-benefit corporations, explained to me that PBCs aren't necessarily an effective way to bring about public good. 'They are not great enforcement tools,' he said—they can 'nudge' a company toward a given cause but do not give regulators much authority over that commitment. (Anthropic and xAI, two of OpenAI's main competitors, are also public-benefit corporations.) OpenAI's proposed conversion also raised a whole other issue—a precedent for taking resources accrued under charitable intentions and repurposing them for profitable pursuits. And so yet another coalition, composed of nonprofits and advocacy groups, wrote its own petition for OpenAI's plans to be investigated, with the aim of preventing charitable organizations from being leveraged for financial gain in the future. Regulators, it turned out, were already watching. Three days after OpenAI's December announcement of the plans to revoke nonprofit oversight, Kathy Jennings, the attorney general of Delaware, notified the court presiding over Musk's lawsuit that her office was reviewing the proposed restructure to ensure that the corporation was fulfilling its charitable interest to build AI that benefits all of humanity. California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, was reviewing the restructure, as well. This ultimately led OpenAI to change plans. 'We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,' Altman wrote in a letter to OpenAI employees earlier this month. The for-profit, meanwhile, will still transition to a PBC. The new plan is not yet a done deal: The offices of the attorneys general told me that they are reviewing the new proposal. Microsoft, OpenAI's closest corporate partner, has not yet agreed to the new structure. One could be forgiven for wondering what all the drama is for. Amid tension over OpenAI's corporate structure, the organization's corporate development hasn't so much as flinched. In just the past few weeks, the company has announced a new CEO of applications, someone to directly oversee and expand business operations; OpenAI for Countries, an initiative focused on building AI infrastructure around the world; and Codex, a powerful AI 'agent' that does coding tasks. To OpenAI, these endeavors legitimately contribute to benefiting humanity: building more and more useful AI tools; bringing those tools and the necessary infrastructure to run them to people around the world; drastically increasing the productivity of software engineers. No matter OpenAI's ultimate aims, in a race against Google and Meta, some commercial moves are necessary to stay ahead. And enriching OpenAI's investors and improving people's lives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The greater issue is this: There is no universal definition for 'safe' or 'beneficial' AI. A chatbot might help doctors process paperwork faster and help a student float through high school without learning a thing; an AI research assistant could help climate scientists arrive at novel insights while also consuming huge amounts of water and fossil fuels. Whatever definition OpenAI applies will be largely determined by its board. Altman, in his May letter to employees, contended that OpenAI is on the best path 'to continue to make rapid, safe progress and to put great AI in the hands of everyone.' But everyone, in this case, has to trust OpenAI's definition of safe progress. The nonprofit has not always been the most effective check on the company. In 2023, the nonprofit board—which then and now had 'control' over the for-profit subsidiary—removed Altman from his position as CEO. But the company's employees revolted, and he was reinstated shortly thereafter with the support of Microsoft. In other words, 'control' on paper does not always amount to much in reality. Sharpe, the OpenAI spokesperson, said the nonprofit will be able to appoint and remove directors to OpenAI's separate for-profit board, but declined to clarify whether its board will be able to remove executives (such as the CEO). The company is 'continuing to work through the specific governance mandate in consultation with relevant stakeholders,' he said. Sharpe also told me that OpenAI will remove the cap on shareholder returns, which he said will satisfy the conditions for SoftBank's billions of dollars in investment. A top SoftBank executive has said 'nothing has really changed' with OpenAI's restructure, despite the nonprofit retaining control. If investors are now satisfied, the underlying legal structure is irrelevant. Marc Toberoff, a lawyer representing Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, wrote in a statement that 'SoftBank pulled back the curtain on OpenAI's corporate theater and said the quiet part out loud. OpenAI's recent 'restructuring' proposal is nothing but window dressing.' Lessig, the lawyer who represented the former OpenAI employees, told me that 'it's outrageous that we are allowing the development of this potentially catastrophic technology with nobody at any level doing any effective oversight of it.' Two years ago, Altman, in Senate testimony, seemed to agree with that notion: He told lawmakers that 'regulatory intervention by governments will be critical to mitigate the risks' of powerful AI. But earlier this month, only a few days after writing to his employees and investors that 'as AI accelerates, our commitment to safety grows stronger,' he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be 'disastrous' for America's AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jotul Group - Interim financial report for the quarter ended 31 March 2025
The Jøtul Group (representing Jøtul AS together with its subsidiaries; the Group) is one of the three largest suppliers of fireplaces in Europe and a significant player in North America. The company, with a history dating back to 1853 through its legacy as one of Norway's oldest companies, distributes stand-alone stoves, inserts, frames and accessories for fireplaces. The Group's main brands are Jøtul, Scan and Ravelli. The Jøtul fireplaces are manufactured from cast iron and appear timeless and robust, with Norwegian tradition. The Scan fireplaces are manufactured from plated steel and are characterized by modern Danish design, while the Ravelli pellets stoves are characterized by Italian design and technology. Manufacturing takes place through own production in Norway, Poland, France and the USA, in addition to a range of bought-in products. The products are sold through one of the most widely reaching global networks in the industry, consisting of own sales companies and distributors. The products reach the end consumers through specialty shops, and in Norway also through building materials retail chains. In Q1 2025, the Group incurred a consolidated loss of MNOK -68.5 (Q1 2024: loss of MNOK -76.1). The operating result was a loss of MNOK -40.6 in Q1 2025 (Q1 2024: loss of MNOK -54.9). The total comprehensive loss in Q1 2025 was MNOK -76.6 (Q1 2024: loss of MNOK -59.7). Considering the continued weak business performance in 2024, including a disappointing high season, the liquidity projections of the Group developed negatively, to the point that the Group needed to postpone bond interest payments in early 2025 and initiate a structured process with its key stakeholders with the aim of finding a long-term solution for strengthening its liquidity and overall balance sheet. By the end of Q1 2025, the Group obtained approval from its bondholders to proceed with a recapitalization plan which will ensure a stronger financial position, significantly improving the Group's balance sheet by converting existing bond debt to equity and raising further capital, while continuing the Group's revolving credit facility with an extended tenor. The effective implementation date of the recapitalization plan was April 14, 2025. As of that date, Jøtul was significantly delevered, through debt conversion, and additional liquidity was injected in the form of new liquidity bonds, securing business continuity as a going concern for the foreseeable future. Also, as of that date the bondholders have taken full ownership of the company. For further information, please contact: Adrian PostolacheGroup CFOTel: +47 458 79 680Email: Attachment Jotul_Interim_Financial_Report_March_2025Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Associated Press
41 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds DoubleVerify Investors of the Pending Class Action Lawsuit with a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2025
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses Exceeding $75,000 In DoubleVerify To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options If you suffered losses exceeding $75,000 in DoubleVerify between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [You may also click here for additional information] New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - May 30, 2025) - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. ('DoubleVerify' or the 'Company') (NYSE: DV) and reminds investors of the July 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. [ This image cannot be displayed. Please visit the source: ] Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (a) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (b) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on Activation Services, the Company's high-margin advertising optimization services segment, was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted the Company's profits; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (f) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (g) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint alleges that the truth was revealed on February 27, 2025, when DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending and the suspension of DoubleVerify services by a large customer. Defendants also disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was negatively impacting the Company. On this news, DoubleVerify's stock price dropped $7.83 per share, or 36%, from a closing price of $21.73 on February 27, 2025, to a closing price of $13.90 on February 28, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding DoubleVerify's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. class action, go to or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, on X, or on Facebook. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( ). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. To view the source version of this press release, please visit
