The NYT Cooking app is testing AI recipe modifications

Genevieve Ko, the senior editor for NYT Cooking, announced the experimental feature late last week. According to the publication, the tool is engineered to recommend intelligent substitutions for various ingredients and cooking equipment, seamlessly scale recipes to accommodate any number of servings, and generally adapt established recipes to meet the specific, real-time needs of home cooks.

To illustrate how the feature operates in practice, the announcement highlighted a common culinary dilemma: swapping ingredients on the fly. In one example provided by the publication, a user asks the app to substitute baby spinach for kale. The AI-powered feature then analyzes the structural differences between the two leafy greens and advises the user that because baby spinach wilts much faster than kale, it should be introduced at a later, more appropriate step in the cooking process to avoid overcooking or dissolving the vegetable.

In addition to ingredient swaps, Ko noted that the technology is capable of adjusting recipes to account for different kitchen pans, tools, and available hardware. To maintain user privacy, any customized recipe variations generated through the tool remain strictly private to the individual account and cannot be published, shared, or distributed via the application’s broader network.

The introduction of the AI modification feature is being rolled out in phases as the New York Times closely monitors system performance, user engagement, and feedback. At present, the tool is exclusively available to all NYT Cooking subscribers using the iOS mobile application, with a broader rollout promised to arrive in the near future.

However, the integration of generative AI into a platform historically celebrated for its human-curated culinary artistry has met with immediate resistance from a vocal segment of the publication’s readership. Concerns began accumulating rapidly in the comment section of the announcement article, with subscribers questioning both the broader environmental sustainability of widespread AI adoption and the creeping influence of automated technologies on the traditionally human-centric user experience of the platform.

When one concerned reader inquired in the comments whether there would be a mechanism or setting to completely disable the AI feature, senior editor Genevieve Ko responded directly, stating that there was no way to turn off the function at this time, while emphasizing that the tool is entirely optional to use and can simply be ignored by those who prefer traditional recipes.

The response did little to quell the dissatisfaction of some long-time users. Another reader voiced deep disappointment, writing that they had always loved NYT Cooking and that it pained them to see the corporate AI mandate reach what used to be a wonderful, simple collection of human-tested recipes and personal notes contributed by a diverse community of cooks.

Company representatives have pointed out that this is not the New York Times’ first foray into utilizing automated tools within the Cooking app ecosystem. Ko noted that backend AI systems were previously employed two years ago to convert imperial volume measurements into metric weight measurements across the platform’s vast recipe database. Furthermore, a feature was introduced last year that mathematically converts recipes to automatically halve or double the original serving sizes, laying some of the technological groundwork for the current experimentation.

As the debate unfolded in the comment section, engagement grew to the point where the moderators ultimately closed the comments on the announcement post. This decision drew additional scrutiny from readers, prompting a clarification from New York Times spokesperson Jordan Cohen regarding the publication’s operational standards.

Cohen explained to the press that closing the comments after a designated period is standard practice across the publication. He noted that comments on the article had remained open for four full days, during which editors from the Cooking team took active care to answer questions, address subscriber concerns, and engage directly with readers.

The publication maintained that conversation open specifically to give readers a meaningful opportunity to share feedback and hear directly from the team behind the product, Cohen added. Furthermore, he noted that closing comments on older articles is standard procedure at the Times to allow moderators to focus their attention and resources on new discussions.

Despite the friction observed in the comment sections, the publisher remains optimistic about the tool’s utility. Cohen stated that the organization is pleased to see that many members of the dedicated Cooking community are genuinely interested in exploring the new technology and are already putting it to the test on the iOS application, with many reportedly experiencing positive results in their home kitchens.