In a nutshell: The New York Times is giving its editorial and product staff the green light to use select generative AI tools to enhance their work and make their jobs easier. However, just because the tools are available doesn't mean they will be adopted en masse. In documents and videos seen by Semafor, The Times outlined how staffers should and shouldn't use artificial intelligence. For example, employees are encouraged to use tools like GitHub Copilot for code creation, Google Vertex AI to help with product development, and certain AI tools from Amazon to craft quizzes, social copy, and FAQ entries.NYT journalists are also permitted to use AI to help tighten up paragraphs, create summaries of articles for inclusion in newsletters, suggest edits, and brainstorm search-optimized headlines. The publication even created its own AI-based summarization tool, Echo, to help condense content.The guidelines note that the publication views AI not as a magical solution but, like previous advances, as a powerful tool to be used in service of their mission. Language translation and digitally voiced articles could make The Times more accessible than ever and in the future, generative AI may even be used in ways we haven't yet conceived.The Times has installed guardrails to help prevent misuse. In addition to a mandatory training video, staffers are prohibited from using AI tools to draft or significantly revise articles. What's more, staff members aren't allowed to use AI-generated images or videos in stories and should watch for suggestions that could inadvertently reveal protected sources.Not everyone is sold on the concept. According to Semafor, some employees expressed concern that using AI could inspire laziness or generate inaccurate information that would hinder the creative process. As such, The Times doesn't expect universal adoption out of the gate. // Related StoriesGenerative AI in journalism can be a slippery slope, but it should be noted that The Times' guidelines are in line with standard industry practices and largely mirror our own ethics policy on the subject.Image credit: Marco Lenti, Sarah Shull