Artificial intelligence has proven itself capable of writing sharp book reviews and displaying a surprising sense of irony—but it won’t replace quality journalism, according to the editor of Il Foglio, an Italian newspaper leading the charge in AI experimentation.

In what it claims as a global first, Il Foglio recently completed a month-long trial featuring a four-page daily supplement entirely written by AI. The special insert was published alongside the regular edition and, according to editor Claudio Cerasa, was a resounding success that boosted sales.

Following the trial’s positive reception, Il Foglio plans to continue with a weekly AI-written section. Cerasa also intends to occasionally deploy AI for articles in areas outside the staff’s expertise. A recent example was a feature on astronomy, a topic not typically covered by the paper’s 22-person team.

Despite the growing role of AI in the newsroom, Cerasa was firm that its adoption would not result in job cuts. “Some publishers view AI as a cost-cutting tool, replacing journalists with machines. That’s a dangerous and short-sighted approach,” he told a group of foreign reporters. “The key is to explore what AI allows you to do more of—not less.”

Cerasa believes AI will ultimately create opportunities, particularly for those who know how to interact with the technology effectively. More importantly, he said, it will raise the bar for human journalism by pushing writers to dig deeper and produce more original, creative content.

“Writers will be challenged to bring fresh perspectives and connect more with readers,” he noted.

Throughout the month-long trial, Cerasa worked closely with the AI system and was frequently impressed by its performance. “The most astonishing thing was its innate sense of irony,” he said. “Ask it to write an ironic piece on almost any topic, and it delivers.”

He also praised the AI’s ability to produce thoughtful book reviews, even for dense 700-page volumes, delivering compelling critiques within minutes. However, he pointed out a key limitation: the AI had to be told whether to take a positive or negative stance, effectively turning it into a “hitman at the mercy of the keyboard.”

This lack of independent judgment, he said, highlighted the fundamental difference between AI and human journalists. “When I assign an article to a journalist, I want them to push back, to challenge my perspective. That kind of dialogue is essential—and you don’t get it with AI.”

Cerasa also acknowledged occasional factual inaccuracies and outdated information. As an example, he cited the AI’s stubborn refusal to recognize Donald Trump’s re-election in 2024, revealing its limited ability to stay current.

Despite its flaws, Cerasa sees AI as a powerful tool—one that can enhance journalism, but not replace its human heart.

Source