(Shutterstock)

If we look at the result proposed by an image generator as a product of Artificial Intelligence (actually, for now, little more than a game) there is something somewhat disturbing: we asked for a stadium full of fans, but a sinister array of zombies appeared instead of spectators; with an excess of players on the field. A ‘human’ intelligence would have done better, even without more detailed instructions.

This is not to delve into the subject – between the scientific and the philosophical – of A.I., but to point out that human resources, in our profession, are still essential, especially if we seek quality information.

It has happened to us more than once that we have had to intervene in our pages by clarifying news that, having started from an unverified source, has propagated inaccurately by reproducing itself in a hundred different ‘journalistic’ sources all reporting the same error.

Those who think they can communicate by copying a press release as it is, can easily do so by relying on A.I. and renouncing the use of journalists.

But on TSPORT and on Sport&Impianti we do not pursue certain news, even of popular interest, if they are not certain and verified. We talk about it when we have all the documented facts. One wonders whether the A.I., which feeds on everything that has been said and written in the world, is able to identify a piece of news as incorrect even if it is reproduced a hundred times.

We do not want to sound backward-looking: we understand very well that A.I. can facilitate us in the search for solutions, insights, arguments, perhaps saving us days of work.

What we can guarantee is that in the pages that follow all the work has been done by the editorial staff of TSPORT, and by collaborators made of flesh and blood: the contents you will read are the fruit of traditional human intelligence.