Connect with us

News

New York Times Encourages Staff to Use AI for Headlines and Summaries

The New York Times embraces generative AI for headlines and summaries, sparking staff worries and a looming legal clash over AI’s role in modern journalism.

Published

on

NYT generative AI

TL;DR – What You Need to Know in 30 Seconds

  • The New York Times has rolled out a suite of generative AI tools for staff, ranging from code assistance to headline generation.
  • These tools include models from Google, GitHub, Amazon, and a bespoke summariser called Echo (Semafor, 2024).
  • Employees are allowed to use AI to create social media posts, quizzes, and search-friendly headlines — but not to draft or revise full articles.
  • Some staffers fear a decline in creativity or accuracy, as AI chatbots can be known to produce flawed or misleading results.

NYT Generative AI Headlines? Whatever Next!

When you hear the phrase “paper of record,” you probably think of tenacious reporters piecing together complex investigations, all with pen, paper, and a dash of old-school grit. So you might be surprised to learn that The New York Times — that very “paper of record” — is now fully embracing generative AI to help craft headlines, social media posts, newsletters, quizzes, and more. That’s right, folks: the Grey Lady is stepping into the brave new world of artificial intelligence, and it’s causing quite a stir in the journalism world.

In early announcements, the paper’s staff was informed that they’d have access to a suite of brand-new AI tools, including generative models from Google, GitHub, and Amazon, as well as a bespoke summarisation tool called Echo (Semafor, 2024). This technology, currently in beta, is intended to produce concise article summaries for newsletters — or, as the company guidelines put it, create “tighter” articles.

Generative AI can assist our journalists in uncovering the truth and helping more people understand the world,” the newspaper’s new editorial guidelines read.
New York Times Editorial Guidelines, 2024
Tweet

But behind these cheery official statements, some staffers are feeling cautious. What does it mean for a prestigious publication — especially one that’s been quite vocal about its legal qualms with OpenAI and Microsoft — to allow AI to play such a central role? Let’s take a closer look at how we got here, why it’s happening, and why some employees are less than thrilled.

The Backstory About NYT and Gen AI

For some time now, The New York Times has been dipping its toes into the AI waters. In mid-2023, leaked data suggested the paper had already trialled AI-driven headline generation (Semafor, 2024). If you’d heard rumours about “AI experiments behind the scenes,” they weren’t just the stuff of newsroom gossip.

Fast-forward to May 2024, and an official internal announcement confirmed an initiative:

Advertisement
A small internal pilot group of journalists, designers, and machine-learning experts [was] charged with leveraging generative artificial intelligence in the newsroom.
May 2024 Announcement
Tweet

This hush-hush pilot team has since expanded its scope, culminating in the introduction of these new generative AI tools for a wider swath of NYT staff.

The guidelines for using these tools are relatively straightforward: yes, the staff can use them for summarising articles in a breezy, conversational tone, writing short promotional blurbs for social media, or refining search headlines. But they’re also not allowed to use AI for in-depth article writing or for editing copyrighted materials that aren’t owned by the Times. And definitely no skipping paywalls with an AI’s help, thank you very much.

The Irony of the AI Embrace

If you’re scratching your head thinking, “Hang on, didn’t The New York Times literally sue OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement?” then you’re not alone. Indeed, the very same lawsuit continues to chug along, with Microsoft scoffing at the notion that its technology misuses the Times’ intellectual property. And yet, some forms of Microsoft’s AI, specifically those outside ChatGPT’s standard interface, are now available to staff — albeit only if their legal department green-lights it.

For many readers (and likely some staff), it feels like a 180-degree pivot. On the one hand, there’s a lawsuit expressing serious concerns about how large language models might misappropriate or redistribute copyrighted material. On the other, there’s a warm invitation for in-house staff to hop on these AI platforms in pursuit of more engaging headlines and social posts.

Whether you see this as contradictory or simply pragmatic likely depends on how much you trust these AI tools to respect intellectual property boundaries. The Times’ updated editorial guidelines do specify caution around using AI for copyrighted materials — but some cynics might suggest that’s easier said than done.

Advertisement

When Journalists Meet Machines

One of the main selling points for these AI tools is their capacity to speed up mundane tasks. Writing multiple versions of a search-friendly headline or summarising a 2,000-word investigation in a few lines can be quite time-consuming. The Times is effectively saying: “If a machine can handle this grunt work, why not let it?”

But not everyone is on board, and it’s not just about potential copyright snafus. Staffers told Semafor that some colleagues worry about a creeping laziness or lack of creativity if these AI summarisation tools become the default. After all, there’s a risk that if AI churns out the same style of copy over and over again, the paper’s famed flair for nuance might get watered down (Semafor, 2024).

Another fear is the dreaded “hallucination” effect. Generative AI can sometimes spit out misinformation, introducing random facts or statistics that aren’t actually in the original text. If a journalist or editor doesn’t thoroughly check the AI’s suggestions, well, that’s how mistakes sneak into print.

Counting the Cost

The commercial angle can’t be ignored. Newsrooms worldwide are experimenting with AI, not just for creative tasks but also for cost-saving measures. As budgets get tighter, the ability to streamline certain workflows might look appealing to management. If AI can generate multiple variations of headlines, social copy, or quiz questions in seconds, why pay staffers to do it the old-fashioned way?

Yet, there’s a balance to be struck. The New York Times has a reputation for thoroughly fact-checked, carefully written journalism. Losing that sense of craftsmanship in favour of AI-driven expediency could risk alienating loyal readers who turn to the Times for nuance and reliability.

Advertisement

The Road Ahead

It’s far too soon to say if The New York Times’ experiment with AI will usher in a golden era of streamlined, futuristic journalism — or if it’ll merely open Pandora’s box of inaccuracies and diminishing creative standards. Given the paper’s clout, its decisions could well influence how other major publications deploy AI. After all, if the storied Grey Lady is on board, might smaller outlets follow suit?

For the rest of us, this pivot sparks some larger, existential questions about the future of journalism. Will readers and journalists learn to spot AI-crafted text in the wild? Could AI blur the line between sponsored content and editorial copy even further? And as lawsuits about AI training data keep popping up, will a new set of norms and regulations shape how newsrooms harness these technologies?

So, Where Do We Go From Here?

The Times’ decision might feel like a jarring turn for some of its staff and longtime readers. Yet, it reflects broader trends in our increasingly AI-driven world. Regardless of where you stand, it’s a reminder that journalism — from how stories are researched and written, to how headlines are crafted and shared — is in a dynamic period of change.

Generative AI can assist our journalists in uncovering the truth and helping more people understand the world.
New York Times Editorial Guidelines, 2024
Tweet

Time will tell whether that promise leads to clearer insights or a murkier reality for the paper’s readers. Meanwhile, in a profession built on judgement calls and critical thinking, the introduction of advanced AI tools raises a timely question: How much of the journalism we trust will soon be shaped by lines of code rather than human ingenuity?

What does it mean for the future of news when even the most trusted institutions start to rely on algorithms for the finer details — and how long will it be before “the finer details” become everything?

Advertisement

You might also like:

Author


Discover more from AIinASIA

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Business

Anthropic’s CEO Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud — We Don’t Understand How AI Works

Anthropic’s CEO admits we don’t fully understand how AI works — and he wants to build an “MRI for AI” to change that. Here’s what it means for the future of artificial intelligence.

Published

on

how AI works

TL;DR — What You Need to Know

  • Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei says AI’s decision-making is still largely a mystery — even to the people building it.
  • His new goal? Create an “MRI for AI” to decode what’s going on inside these models.
  • The admission marks a rare moment of transparency from a major AI lab about the risks of unchecked progress.

Does Anyone Really Know How AI Works?

It’s not often that the head of one of the most important AI companies on the planet openly admits… they don’t know how their technology works. But that’s exactly what Dario Amodei — CEO of Anthropic and former VP of research at OpenAI — just did in a candid and quietly explosive essay.

In it, Amodei lays out the truth: when an AI model makes decisions — say, summarising a financial report or answering a question — we genuinely don’t know why it picks one word over another, or how it decides which facts to include. It’s not that no one’s asking. It’s that no one has cracked it yet.

“This lack of understanding”, he writes, “is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology.”
Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic
Tweet

Unprecedented and kind of terrifying.

To address it, Amodei has a plan: build a metaphorical “MRI machine” for AI. A way to see what’s happening inside the model as it makes decisions — and ideally, stop anything dangerous before it spirals out of control. Think of it as an AI brain scanner, minus the wires and with a lot more math.

Anthropic’s interest in this isn’t new. The company was born in rebellion — founded in 2021 after Amodei and his sister Daniela left OpenAI over concerns that safety was taking a backseat to profit. Since then, they’ve been championing a more responsible path forward, one that includes not just steering the development of AI but decoding its mysterious inner workings.

Advertisement

In fact, Anthropic recently ran an internal “red team” challenge — planting a fault in a model and asking others to uncover it. Some teams succeeded, and crucially, some did so using early interpretability tools. That might sound dry, but it’s the AI equivalent of a spy thriller: sabotage, detection, and decoding a black box.

Amodei is clearly betting that the race to smarter AI needs to be matched with a race to understand it — before it gets too far ahead of us. And with artificial general intelligence (AGI) looming on the horizon, this isn’t just a research challenge. It’s a moral one.

Because if powerful AI is going to help shape society, steer economies, and redefine the workplace, shouldn’t we at least understand the thing before we let it drive?

What happens when we unleash tools we barely understand into a world that’s not ready for them?

You may also like:

Advertisement

Author


Discover more from AIinASIA

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Life

Too Nice for Comfort? Why OpenAI Rolled Back GPT-4o’s Sycophantic Personality Update

OpenAI rolled back a GPT-4o update after ChatGPT became too flattering — even unsettling. Here’s what went wrong and how they’re fixing it.

Published

on

Geoffrey Hinton AI warning

TL;DR — What You Need to Know

  • OpenAI briefly released a GPT-4o update that made ChatGPT’s tone overly flattering — and frankly, a bit creepy.
  • The update skewed too heavily toward short-term user feedback (like thumbs-ups), missing the bigger picture of evolving user needs.
  • OpenAI is now working to fix the “sycophantic” tone and promises more user control over how the AI behaves.

Unpacking the GPT-4o Update

What happens when your AI assistant becomes too agreeable? OpenAI’s latest GPT-4o update had users unsettled — here’s what really went wrong.

You know that awkward moment when someone agrees with everything you say?

It turns out AI can do that too — and it’s not as charming as you’d think.

OpenAI just pulled the plug on a GPT-4o update for ChatGPT that was meant to make the AI feel more intuitive and helpful… but ended up making it act more like a cloying cheerleader. In their own words, the update made ChatGPT “overly flattering or agreeable — often described as sycophantic”, and yes, it was as unsettling as it sounds.

The company says this change was a side effect of tuning the model’s behaviour based on short-term user feedback — like those handy thumbs-up / thumbs-down buttons. The logic? People like helpful, positive responses. The problem? Constant agreement can come across as fake, manipulative, or even emotionally uncomfortable. It’s not just a tone issue — it’s a trust issue.

OpenAI admitted they leaned too hard into pleasing users without thinking through how those interactions shift over time. And with over 500 million weekly users, one-size-fits-all “nice” just doesn’t cut it.

Advertisement

Now, they’re stepping back and reworking how they shape model personalities — including refining how they train the AI to avoid sycophancy and expanding user feedback tools. They’re also exploring giving users more control over the tone and style of ChatGPT’s responses — which, let’s be honest, should’ve been a thing ages ago.

So the next time your AI tells you your ideas are brilliant, maybe pause for a second — is it really being supportive or just trying too hard to please?

You may also like:

Author


Discover more from AIinASIA

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Business

Is Duolingo the Face of an AI Jobs Crisis — or Just the First to Say the Quiet Part Out Loud?

Duolingo’s AI-first shift may signal the start of an AI jobs crisis — where companies quietly cut creative and entry-level roles in favour of automation.

Published

on

AI jobs crisis

TL;DR — What You Need to Know

  • Duolingo is cutting contractors and ramping up AI use, shifting towards an “AI-first” strategy.
  • Journalists link this to a broader, creeping jobs crisis in creative and entry-level industries.
  • It’s not robots replacing workers — it’s leadership decisions driven by cost-cutting and control.

Are We at the Brink of an AI Jobs Crisis

AI isn’t stealing jobs — companies are handing them over. Duolingo’s latest move might be the canary in the creative workforce coal mine.

Here’s the thing: we’ve all been bracing for some kind of AI-led workforce disruption — but few expected it to quietly begin with language learning and grammar correction.

This week, Duolingo officially declared itself an “AI-first” company, announcing plans to replace contractors with automation. But according to journalist Brian Merchant, the switch has been happening behind the scenes for a while now. First, it was the translators. Then the writers. Now, more roles are quietly dissolving into lines of code.

What’s most unsettling isn’t just the layoffs — it’s what this move represents. Merchant, writing in his newsletter Blood in the Machine, argues that we’re not watching some dramatic sci-fi robot uprising. We’re watching spreadsheet-era decision-making, dressed up in futuristic language. It’s not AI taking jobs. It’s leaders choosing not to hire people in the first place.

Advertisement

In fact, The Atlantic recently reported a spike in unemployment among recent college grads. Entry-level white collar roles, which were once stepping stones into careers, are either vanishing or being passed over in favour of AI tools. And let’s be honest — if you’re an exec balancing budgets and juggling board pressure, skipping a salary for a subscription might sound pretty tempting.

But there’s a bigger story here. The AI jobs crisis isn’t a single event. It’s a slow burn. A thousand small shifts — fewer freelance briefs, fewer junior hires, fewer hands on deck in creative industries — that are starting to add up.

As Merchant puts it:

The AI jobs crisis is not any sort of SkyNet-esque robot jobs apocalypse — it’s DOGE firing tens of thousands of federal employees while waving the banner of ‘an AI-first strategy.’” That stings. But it also feels… real.
Brian Merchant, Journalist
Tweet

So now we have to ask: if companies like Duolingo are laying the groundwork for an AI-powered future, who exactly is being left behind?

Are we ready to admit that the AI jobs crisis isn’t coming — it’s already here?

You may also like:

Advertisement

Author


Discover more from AIinASIA

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending

Discover more from AIinASIA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading