The New York Times, the self-proclaimed “paper of record”, faces some serious and well-deserved backlash for replacing human artists with AI. And let’s just say, the irony here is almost too good to be true.

While the NYT’s union is accusing the newspaper of prioritizing cost savings over quality of work, the publication recently won nine gold medals for its artistry. So, basically, they’re cutting costs by getting rid of talented human artists who have helped contribute to their success. Makes sense, right?

The thing that gets me about this is the blatant hypocrisy of the situation. The NYT has been quick to point fingers at technology companies for using copyrighted work without permission, yet here they are using AI to replace their own staff members. Oh, the irony.

But wait, it gets even better. The NYT’s representative claims that these job cuts had nothing to do with wanting cheaper labor, but rather it was just a “coincidental timing” after spending $1 million on lawsuits. Because who needs human artists when you can just use soulless machines, am I right?

And let’s not forget about Claro, the software that the NYT is using for their “applied AI image intelligence”. Sounds fancy, but let’s call it what it really is: a way to cut costs and make more money. Because who needs to pay for trained professionals when you can just use a computer program?

The callous audacity towards the human artists who have lost their jobs. Seriously, how? Why? The art director for NYT’s Print Hub section, Audrey Razgaitis, expressed her devastation and even stated, “I thought we were better than this”. But apparently, the NYT thinks it’s better to prioritize profit over the well-being of their employees. Classic.

In conclusion, it’s clear that The New York Times has been caught red-handed with their hands in the robot cookie jar. And while they may have won some gold medals for their artistry, at what cost? It’s time for the publication to take a hard look at their priorities and start treating their employees with the respect and value they deserve. Because let’s face it, relying on AI for everything may make things easier, but it certainly doesn’t make it right. Do better, New York Times: if you use AI to replace human artists, don’t be surprised if the next job to be replaced is your own.