In 1994, The New York Times published an article questioning whether the internet would be good for journalism. Thirty years later, it’s making a similar calculation about AI. The news that The Times is officially embracing AI tools for its product and editorial teams is less of a surprise and more of a confirmation: resistance is futile.
But this isn’t just another industry adapting to technology. It’s a case study in how legacy institutions, especially those built on human judgment and credibility - navigate the tension between efficiency and authenticity.
AI is inevitable. The real question is how much of journalism, as we know it, can survive the transition.
The Efficiency Trap
One of the first things companies do when they introduce AI is frame it as an efficiency tool.
The New York Times is no different. Its announcement emphasizes AI’s role in summarizing articles, generating SEO headlines, and assisting with coding. The subtext is clear: AI will not replace journalists, only help them.
This is a common story in industries facing automation. Factories didn’t stop making cars when robots arrived; they just made them faster.
But journalism isn’t manufacturing. Speed isn’t the bottleneck, trust is.
Readers don’t subscribe to The Times because they need faster headlines; they subscribe because they believe its human judgment is worth paying for.
Efficiency arguments work well in jobs where output is easily measurable. AI writes copy faster than humans. It edits photos in seconds. It summarizes articles instantly. But journalism isn’t just a collection of tasks. It’s a craft built on context, ethics, and deep thinking. But ironically, so is AI.
What happens when efficiency becomes the goal rather than a tool?
The Thin Line Between Assistance and Dependence
Right now, The Times is using AI to assist journalists, not replace them. AI can help brainstorm interview questions, suggest edits, and even voice digital articles.
These seem harmless enough. But that’s how it always starts.
Once AI proves it can generate serviceable social copy, why not let it handle routine articles? If AI can draft summaries, why not full stories? If it can analyze datasets, why not investigative reports?
The slippery slope isn’t theoretical; we’ve already seen it happen in content farms, where AI-generated news articles are flooding the internet.
There’s an irony in The Times’ approach: while it embraces AI for internal use, it’s simultaneously suing OpenAI and Microsoft for allegedly using its content to train their models.
The message is clear, AI is fine when The Times controls it, but not when it threatens its own business model. That’s not hypocrisy; it’s survival, I guess.
The Ghost in the Bylines
Imagine an article in The New York Times that was partially written by AI. The journalist who edited it still gets a byline, but the words on the page were generated by a machine.
Would readers feel differently about it? Would they trust it less?
There’s a psychological element to journalism that technology can’t replicate, yet. People trust human reporters, even when they make mistakes, because they assume those mistakes come from an honest place. AI doesn’t make mistakes, it generates outputs based on probability.
That’s a fundamental difference.
When a journalist misreports a story, there’s someone to hold accountable. When an AI misreports a story, who do you blame?
The moment readers start doubting whether an article was truly written by a human, something shifts. Journalism depends on a fragile social contract: readers trust that the news is reported, not manufactured.
Once AI plays a significant role in content creation, that contract could start to unravel.
Somehow, we don't mind if it's AI, once it doesn't read or sound like AI.
Robotic voices feel unnatural and off-putting, but the moment AI adopts a more human-like tone, we tend to accept it. Even when we know it’s not a real person.
The Long Game
Despite these concerns, The New York Times isn’t being reckless. It’s moving cautiously, setting guidelines that limit AI’s role in actual reporting. No AI-drafted articles. No AI-sourced quotes. No AI-revised investigative pieces. For now.
But what happens when competitors who don’t share these ethical concerns start publishing AI-generated stories at scale?
When AI-written articles outperform human-written ones in clicks and engagement?
The Times can hold the line for only so long before market forces push it further. AI will get better, and the pressure to use it more aggressively will intensify.
This is the real challenge. The Times may not only be deciding whether to use AI. It’s deciding how much of itself it’s willing to lose in the process.
Big vs. Small - The AI Divide in Journalism
Smaller news outlets have been quick to embrace AI, often using it to generate entire articles with minimal human oversight. Our team has seen firsthand how many online publishers rely on AI to churn out content rapidly, with editors providing only a light review before hitting publish.
In contrast, major outlets like The New York Times are taking a far more cautious approach, experimenting with AI while setting strict guidelines on its use.
But while The Times may be moving slowly, it’s setting a precedent. As AI tools become more sophisticated and the pressure to produce content faster increases, expect to see other major news organizations follow suit. AI in journalism is no longer a question of if, but how much and how soon.
Journalism’s Fork in the Road
The New York Times’ adoption of AI tools is a practical move, but it’s also a symbolic one. It acknowledges that AI isn’t just coming for journalism, it’s already here. The real question is whether AI will enhance the craft or erode it.
Journalism is one of the few industries where inefficiency is a feature, not a bug. The time it takes to research, interview, and verify sources isn’t wasted, it’s what makes news trustworthy. AI may streamline some parts of the process, but right now, it can’t replace the core of what makes journalism valuable: human insight.
For now, The Times is treating AI like a helpful assistant rather than a replacement. But history suggests that once an industry starts down this path, there’s no turning back. Whether journalism can survive this transition with its soul intact remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: the AI revolution won’t be announced in a breaking news alert.
It will happen slowly, article by article, until one day, we realize that the news isn’t written. It’s generated.