NYT Cooking AI Ingredient Substitutions Spark Reader Backlash

Roughly 77% of readers who commented on the New York Times’ announcement of new AI features for its Cooking app expressed negative sentiment, according to a sentiment analysis of 171 user comments reported by Nieman Lab.

The New York Times has introduced an AI-driven tool in its Cooking app that allows subscribers to modify recipes, specifically focusing on ingredient substitutions. Currently available to iOS subscribers with a broader release planned, the tool aims to solve common kitchen dilemmas—such as substituting spinach for chard—by adjusting cooking times and techniques to account for the different properties of the ingredients.

The Friction Between Efficiency and Craft

Genevieve Ko, a senior editor and columnist at NYT Cooking, explained that the tool is intended to support the “tactile physical pleasure of cooking” by removing the friction of missing ingredients. The AI doesn’t just swap one leaf for another; it considers the “stamina” of the vegetable. While chard is a hardy green, spinach wilts rapidly, and the AI is designed to suggest adding spinach later in the process to avoid a mushy result.

But for a significant portion of the paying audience, this efficiency is the problem. The backlash centers on the belief that the “difficulty” of cooking is where the value lies. Many users argue that figuring out a substitution is a core part of developing a sense of taste and culinary intuition.

“Anyone using AI for cooking has no sense of taste and no desire to work out the intricacies of cooking and baking,” wrote Michael King of Brooklyn in a comment analyzed by Nieman Lab.

On one side are users like Andy from San Francisco, who told the publication he doesn’t cook for stress relief but to put dinner on the table, welcoming anything that makes the process faster. On the other are those who view the kitchen as one of the last remaining sanctuaries from algorithmic intervention.

Readers Criticize AI Environmental Toll and Subscription Costs

The controversy extends beyond the quality of the recipes to the ethics of the technology itself. In her explanation of the features, Ko addressed concerns regarding the environmental impact of data centers and the concentration of power among AI companies. However, readers weren’t convinced by the framing. Many commenters pointed out the irony of paying a premium subscription—up to $390 a year, according to some users—for content they believe should be human-curated.

The environmental toll of Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a primary point of contention.

A Clash of Perspectives on Utility

While the majority of the feedback was critical, a minority of users found immediate practical value in the update. The tool is most praised for dietary restrictions, where the AI quickly and accurately converts standard recipes into gluten-free versions.

Vivid illustration showcasing digital interface cooking surrounded fresh ingredients interactive tools symbolizing

User Perspective	Primary Argument	View on AI Integration
The Purists	Cooking is about problem-solving and intuition.	Intrusive; destroys the craft.
The Pragmatists	Cooking is a chore to be optimized for speed.	Helpful; reduces daily stress.
The Ethicists	AI has too high an environmental and social cost.	Irresponsible; a waste of resources.

Despite the outcry, the New York Times has maintained that the feature is entirely optional. When asked by users if there was a way to disable the AI features entirely, Ko responded that no opt-out exists at this time, though the tool only activates if the user explicitly chooses to use it.

Users View Editorial Justification as Corporate Gaslighting

Perhaps the most cutting criticism from the community wasn’t about the AI itself, but about how the Times communicated the change. Some users felt the editorial justification—which acknowledged the risks of AI “escaping our control” while simultaneously promoting the tool—was a form of corporate gaslighting. Ian from Los Angeles described the disclosure as “baffling,” suggesting the publication was trying to distance itself from a decision it was nonetheless determined to implement.

The question now is whether the New York Times views its Cooking app’s AI features as a way to support the human pleasure of cooking or as a tool to make the process of putting dinner on the table faster and smoother.