How it works and why it matters
The New York Times recipe service has introduced an AI-based assistant, currently available only to subscribers on iOS: The Verge reports this in a hands-on test. The feature appears on the recipe page with an invitation to customize it and accepts written requests, from simply substituting an ingredient to completely rewriting the dish, for example to reduce portions or make it vegan and gluten-free. The point the article highlights is that the tool does not modify the original recipe: it generates a new one, with the changes highlighted and the ability to return to the original text at any time.
These are not recipes invented by the AI. According to the report, the assistant was trained on user comments, the space where the service's community has discussed substitutions and tricks for years. The test describes a concrete case: a ginger chicken and rice dish, prepared with ingredients different from those specified, produced guidance on shorter cooking times, cooking the red onion together with the chicken, and steaming the green beans. The NYT Cooking editorial team said the tool is trained not to accommodate requests that would compromise the result.
Where the system is convincing and where it is not
The limitations emerge especially on quantities. The author recounts asking the tool to turn a cinnamon bundt cake into muffins, obtaining a version with reduced times and a reasonable number of pans, but also an incorrect reduction of ingredients: halving the recipe, the eggs went from five to three. In another passage, asking how much butter was needed for the original version, the assistant indicated the quantity from the modified version without indicating which recipe it was using.
A structural problem concerns version management: it is not possible to save the customized recipe as a separate recipe, which can create confusion when cooking the original one. The practical advice contained in the article is to delete one's own version. The author also notes that use in the kitchen remains inconvenient, because voice control for navigating the app is missing, unlike what happens with Alexa on a smart screen.
The comparison with other assistants and what remains to be verified
The test compares the tool with Alexa Plus, used by the author on a kitchen display: on substitution suggestions the two systems gave similar guidance, but Alexa was unable to show the modified recipe on screen and, when asked about the steps, improvised an unplanned chicken cut. Overall, according to the account, the app proved more reliable, although less convenient.
Several aspects remain to be clarified: the tool's availability beyond iOS, the timeline of any expansion, how customized versions are saved, and the controls adopted to prevent errors in quantities. These are elements the material does not cover and that require direct verification with the company. The case, however, indicates a precise direction for AI tools applied to cooking: not to replace tested recipes, but to make faster the adaptation work users already do in the comments.
The information comes from The Verge's test; the statements by the NYT Cooking editorial team are reported in the article and not independently verified.
