Hacker News

points by huitzitziltzin 1 day ago | 0 comments

It is so exaggerated and silly to ask for it to be turned off.

It’s completely optional and you only might want to use it if you change the recipe.

Some of these users are overreacting ridiculously to ai.

I think the difference here is that they are paying for a feature they are morally opposed to, and thus supporting it. So now they are faced with two options: subsidize the development of technology they don't like, or leave and stop using the service altogether. The outrage comes from feeling morally obligated to leave a paid service despite being otherwise happy with it.

[–] not_a_bot_4sho 1 day ago

> Some of these users are overreacting ridiculously to ai.

These are paying customers with overwhelming negative reaction. It doesn't matter their reasons.

If you want to keep your business, you listen to your customers.

[–] so-gala-massey 1 day ago

For those of us who despise the ai enshittification train, it’s just more slop spreading like acid rain poisoning everything. But if you like ai I can see how it’s no big deal.

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

Before AI there were millions of stupid blog posts with roughly the same recipes with minor deviations. It was literally human made slop.

At least AI can give me a concise recipe without ads or making me scroll through some story about a brisk day in october.

[–] so-gala-massey 1 day ago

But it wasn’t on the NYT website. That’s the difference. I could ignore the shitty sites and go to an “authority” (NYT recipes are laughably pretentious but good).

[–] crostlybostly 1 day ago

But you can still ignore / n use AI though

My point is that slop is not an AI problem. Instagram, blog recipes, 207 marvel sequals, countless photos of the same famous tourist spots. Humans were spreading slop like crazy well before AI. It is just now they can make it even easier. Its a human issue, not an AI issue.

[–] queenkjuul 1 day ago

Or you could pay the NYT to hire professional chefs to write you recipes, like these people were. You don't pay them if you're satisfied with slop, the slop is everywhere for free

[–] cavemandaveman 1 day ago

I'm more annoyed by the lazy, reactionary thinking that leads commenters to parrot "ai slop" and "enshittification" in referring to any AI feature in a product. That's the real slop.

[–] so-gala-massey 1 day ago

Not as lazy as your hot take.

[–] thisismyanon2 1 day ago

How is it "so exaggerated and silly" to want to disable a feature in a product you pay for? It blows my mind at how allergic AI bros are to consent.

[–] tantalor 1 day ago

Because that's not how software features work?

You don't ask, "Hey, I don't have a printer, please disable the Print feature in MS word."

No, you just... don't click that button.

[–] tarsierscripter 1 day ago

The print button doesn't persist across all sections of the ribbon, the Copilot button does. They decided people weren't using Copilot enough so they carved out a permanent place for it on the window. If the print button started elbowing other UI elements off the screen to occupy more and more prominent places then you could absolutely bet users would complain.

The last time Microsoft went all-in on an annoying UI element like this? Clippy. How'd that go?

[–] none_to_remain 1 day ago

If someone is really upset about seeing the button, I guess they could ask an AI to make their browser filter it out

[–] shimman 1 day ago

You don't think users, paid users at that, shouldn't have a say in product development? Good lord no wonder the public distrusts the tech community so much.

[–] Grombobulous 1 day ago

Yeah, I think the more broad issue here is that NYT should know better that public sentiment on AI is incredibly negative.

I do find this somewhat paradoxical to the fact that clearly a lot of people use it.

It seems like one of those things where culturally it’s become virtuous to be against it and to say you don’t use it, but privately most people are using it.

Still, I think NYT’s subscriber demographic is likely pretty educated and specifically paying for higher quality content. They don’t want haphazardly tossed together recipe blogs.

AI sentiment is negative enough that all companies who build in AI features need to include a toggle that hides them completely. Otherwise you get user backlash like this.

[–] eichin 1 day ago

So negative that the first I heard about this was with the title "New York Times adds glue to its Cooking App. Users aren't thrilled" (presumably from someone who read the niemanlab article before I did)

[–] mmonaghan 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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

[–] thisismyanon2 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

That's quite a strawman.

[–] switchbak 1 day ago

If it's not enabled by default, "disabled" is the natural state, no?

Or is this more intrusive than I imagine?

[–] jug 1 day ago

How would the NYT Cooking website even look like if it was entirely modularized into pieces that could be turned on and off to customize it to perfection for every taste?

This AI thing is not even active nor activated unless you use it. The complaints here sound more reactive to the word AI than anything else to me.

[–] none_to_remain 1 day ago

It already is, it's called a div and I can make it disappear in three clicks in my Firefox.

It would be nice if this power was more available to the normies, but it's the same tool that makes the ad disappear.

[–] mmonaghan 1 day ago

It's a big ask to be able to toggle whole features lol. Just don't use it if you don't like it

[–] jibalt 1 day ago

Disabling the feature means disabling it for everyone.

If you don't want to use it, just don't use it.

[–] hackboyfly 1 day ago

“It blows my mind at how allergic AI bros are to consent.“

You make it sound like you have to use it.

Would you demand your mobile device manufacturer to rollback the features you don’t like and don’t use? Did you consent to it?

The allergy against AI is understandable. But that’s because companies tries to shoehorn it in everywhere. This however sounds like a perfectly fine use case, which is also optional to use.

[–] thisismyanon2 1 day ago

You make it sound like NYT has to include slop in the app and that the only way to do ingredient substitution is with AI.

[–] jibalt 1 day ago

No, they didn't make anything sound remotely like that.

[–] queenkjuul 1 day ago

I actually would absolutely love it if my mobile device gave me complete control to remove the parts i don't like and don't use, that'd be lovely. Instead you gotta install Graphene or something.

[–] JohnMakin 1 day ago

“You will do as you are told. The market demands it.”