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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

You might also like:

• The Future of Journalism and Ethical Dilemmas
• AI in the News: Opportunity or Threat?
• Read the full NYT Gen AI policy here