The users that comment aren’t thrilled. Don’t mistake that for the user base in general. (though don’t completely disregard them either, they’re power users)

I can only speak for myself but suggestions for ingredient substitutions (if they’re good, which is the crucial part!) would be a really useful feature for me.

This quote feels illustrative:

> “The internet is full of AI cooking content. I pay you because I prefer mine done by people.”

From my reading of it they’re not using AI to make recipes. Just to add optional features that let you modify a recipe a human made. It feels telling that they’re not even engaging with what the new feature is.

> ingredient substitutions (if they’re good, which is the crucial part!) would be a really useful feature for me

I have the same reaction to this feature as I do to getting any AI-derived writing: I can do that. I can ask my own AI for substitutions. It can do them with more information about my tastes, context and health needs than the Times could ever have.

> suggestions for ingredient substitutions (if they’re good, which is the crucial part!) would be a really useful feature for me

Can't they implement this feature without any gen AI? OK, the answer is that they don't want to pay someone for making a list of substitutions, but at least they can generate it and make a human cook revise the results. There is no need for calling gen AI APIs when the app is running.

People are shoving gen AI everywhere out of the hype, including tasks that have better, more reliable solutions with traditional approaches.

Why should they engage with something they didnt ask for and clearly don't want? The burden of proof is on new technology, not its skeptics.