I think there are prob more paid users who want the feature and are willing to pay than those who don't want it, which is why the team built it. They might even believe it brings in new users. It's polarizing but all ai features are lately.

▲

thisismyanon2 4 hours ago | parent [-]

TFA says that over 70% of the comments were negative with the remainder being split between positive and neutral. I'm sure the Times thinks it will rope in new users, but I'm sure the Times is factually wrong.

▲

jibalt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Comments aren't users. Commenters are statistically biased toward complaints.

▲

thisismyanon2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If they're not users what are they? Are you trying to claim that the NYT site is getting brigaded by anti-AI advocates? There are plenty of AI-negative reviews on Apple's app store. Is the App Store publishing bogus complaints too?

I think Occam's Razor applies here. Much like Copilot or Dell's AI computers, nobody wants slop from the NYT. People pay for NYT Cooking specifically for the human curation. Getting slop with a big "we didn't test this recipe and aren't responsible for it" is a net negative in this context.

	▲	jibalt a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		Sigh. The SET of commenters is not the SET of users.