New York Times adds more AI features to its Cooking app. Users aren't thrilled
The New York Times has added an AI tool to its NYT Cooking app that lets subscribers modify recipes, mainly for ingredient substitutions, rolling out first on iOS. The Times previously added AI features for unit conversion and recipe scaling. Senior editor Genevieve Ko described the work as grounded in Times editorial standards. Reader comments on the announcement were largely negative, with a sentiment analysis of 171 comments finding roughly 77% negative, 14% positive. Commenters cited environmental concerns, cost, and a preference for human-made cooking content. Ko said the feature is optional and there is no way to turn it off entirely.
Open original source www.niemanlab.orgOne primary source; other links are context, not independent corroboration.
- Primary sourceHacker News · AI
- Discovery linkHacker News
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Open full article view →- Community discussion+5
- Fetched source page+30
- No editor link review+0
- Community link+0
This measures the stored source trail and editorial steps. It does not certify accuracy, peer review, or independent corroboration. Popularity adds no points.
View full scoring →Read the scoring rubric →What the source says
The New York Times has added an AI tool to its NYT Cooking app that lets subscribers modify recipes, mainly for ingredient substitutions, rolling out first on iOS. The Times previously added AI features for unit conversion and recipe scaling. Senior editor Genevieve Ko described the work as grounded in Times editorial standards. Reader comments on the announcement were largely negative, with a sentiment analysis of 171 comments finding roughly 77% negative, 14% positive. Commenters cited environmental concerns, cost, and a preference for human-made cooking content. Ko said the feature is optional and there is no way to turn it off entirely.
A READER'S EVIDENCE CHECKHow to read this signalSix questions about claims, sources, risks, and open checks
This is a signal-level guide until claim-level evidence is available. “Not recorded” means the evidence has not been assessed here; it does not mean a result is false. How we check AI news →
- 01Who is making each claim?
The claimant and whether each claim was measured or asserted are not recorded in this public brief.
- 02What was actually tested?
Not recorded per claim. Check the source for sample size, tasks, model and benchmark versions, and reproducibility.
- 03Where are the sources?
Original link: www.niemanlab.org. Brief basis: fetched source page. Primary page date and quote locations are not established in this panel.
- 04What could mislead?
The sentiment figures come from an AI-assisted analysis of a small set of self-selected comments by the article's author; source claims not independently checked.
- 05What is at risk if wrong?
Not assessed per claim. Consider safety, privacy, cost, and adoption decisions before relying on the result.
- 06What would change the view?
No claim-specific check is recorded. An inspectable primary method or independent replication could change the assessment.
Key findings from the stored brief
- NYT Cooking's new AI tool lets subscribers apply modifications to recipes, with ingredient substitutions the most requested use so far.
- The tool is available to all Cooking subscribers on iOS first, with broader availability planned and a gradual rollout.
- Ko said the feature is optional, and when asked about turning AI off she responded 'No, not at this time.'
- Per the article's sentiment analysis of 171 reader comments, about 77% were negative, 14% positive, and the rest neutral or mixed.
The sentiment figures come from an AI-assisted analysis of a small set of self-selected comments by the article's author; source claims not independently checked.
This is a source-based abstract, not independent validation of the source's claims.
Evidence & sources
These links show where the signal came from and what the source page linked to. A linked page is context, not independent corroboration.
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Timeline & updates
- Signal dated by source or discovery feed
This timestamp places the signal in the radar. It may be the discovery post date rather than the primary page's first publication date.
- Shared brief stored
AINewsIQ prepared one abstract from fetched source page.
A publication revision history is not stored for this signal. New engagement snapshots do not mean the source itself changed.
Why this may matter
The episode shows the tension between publishers adding generative AI to consumer products and audiences who value human-made editorial content, with reader trust a central concern.
Limits and open questions
The sentiment figures come from an AI-assisted analysis of a small set of self-selected comments by the article's author; source claims not independently checked.
Organization-specific financial, security, and operational effects require the organization's own context and review.
Discussion
Comments are reviewed before publication. Discuss the evidence, not the person.
No published comments yet.
Reader discussion opens with accounts. You can read the original source and published comments now.