A New York Times critic used AI to write a review, but good criticism can’t be outsourced
An author and freelance journalist has admitted to using AI to help him write a book review for The New York Times . Alex Preston’s review of Jean-Baptiste Andrea’s novel Watching Over Her , published by The New York Times in January 2026, draws phrases and full paragraphs from Christobel Kent’s review in The Guardian . The “error” was brought to light by a reader, who alerted The New York Times to the similarities. Preston told The Guardian he is “hugely embarassed” and “made a huge mistake.” The Times promptly dropped Preston, calling his “reliance on A.I. and his use of unattributed work by another writer” a “clear violation of the Times’s standards.” An editor’s note now precedes the review online, advising readers of the issue and providing a link to the Guardian review. Preston’s apology to The Guardian raises more questions than it resolves. The portion quoted online seems to speak more to the issue of unattributed work than his use of AI. It reads: “I made a serious mistake in using an AI tool on a draft review I had written, and I failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI dropped in.” This implies that if he had removed the “overlapping” language, the issue would have been avoided. As a literary critic and scholar, I believe the deeper question isn’t whether or not critics should do more to hide their use of AI—but the ethics of using it at all. Why AI
In January 2026, The New York Times published a book review of Jean-Baptiste Andrea’s novel "Watching Over Her" by Alex Preston. However, the review drew significant attention not for its content but for the revelation that Preston had used AI to write it, inadvertently incorporating phrases and entire paragraphs from Christobel Kent’s review in The Guardian. The issue came to light when a reader alerted The New York Times to the similarities between the two reviews.
Preston admitted to the mistake in an interview with The Guardian, expressing "hugely embarrassed" and acknowledging that he "made a huge mistake." The New York Times responded swiftly, terminating Preston’s contract and labeling his reliance on AI and unattributed use of another writer’s work as a "clear violation of the Times’s standards." An editor’s note was added to the online review, informing readers of the issue and linking to the original Guardian piece.
Preston’s apology, however, raised more questions than it answered. He stated that he had used an AI tool on a draft review he had written but failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI had included. This suggests that if he had simply edited out the borrowed text, the problem might have been avoided. The focus of his apology seemed to lie more on the unattributed use of another critic’s work rather than the ethical implications of using AI in the first place.
As a literary critic and scholar, the deeper question raised by this incident is not about whether critics should conceal their use of AI but about the ethics of using AI for criticism in the first place. The role of a critic is not merely to summarize or repackage art but to actively engage in a conversation about it. As Jane Howard, a critic and The Conversation’s Arts + Culture editor, writes, "Good criticism thrives in the complexity of its environment." Each review exists in dialogue with every other review of a piece of art and with every other review the critic has written. In other words, the critic is in conversation with both the artist and the audience.
The critic’s emotional and intellectual engagement with art—and their ability to translate that engagement into a unique perspective—is what makes criticism valuable. AI, while capable of generating text and identifying patterns, lacks the capacity for genuine emotional engagement and the nuanced understanding that comes from personal experience. Criticism is not a task that can be outsourced to machines, as it requires the human touch that AI cannot provide.
The Preston incident highlights the growing concern over the use of AI in journalism and criticism. While AI can assist in tasks such as fact-checking or data analysis, it should not be used to generate original content that passes as the work of a human critic. The New York Times’s swift response to the situation serves as a reminder of the high standards expected in journalism and the importance of maintaining the integrity of published work.
Ultimately, the Preston case underscores the necessity for critics and journalists to reflect on the role of AI in their work. While technology can aid in the creative process, it cannot replace the human element that makes criticism meaningful and engaging. The ethical use of AI in journalism and criticism must prioritize transparency, originality, and the preservation of the unique voice that each writer brings to their work.
