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 copying 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, expressing "hugely embarrassed" and acknowledging that he "made a huge mistake." The New York Times responded swiftly, dropping Preston and labeling his actions a "clear violation of the Times’s standards." An editor’s note now precedes the review online, informing readers of the issue and linking to the Guardian review.
Preston’s apology to The Guardian, however, raised more questions than it resolved. He stated that he "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 simply removed the overlapping language, the problem would have been avoided. The apology focused more on the unattributed use of another writer’s work rather than the use of AI itself.
As a literary critic and scholar, the deeper question isn’t whether critics should hide their use of AI but the ethics of using it at all. The role of a critic isn’t merely to summarize or repackage art; it’s to actively participate 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 sits in conversation with every other review of a piece of art, 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, lacks the emotional depth and contextual understanding necessary for meaningful criticism.
The incident with Preston’s review highlights the dangers of relying on AI for creative or analytical tasks. While AI can assist in generating ideas or organizing information, it cannot replace the human element of critical thinking, empathy, and original insight. Good criticism requires a deep understanding of both the work being reviewed and the audience’s relationship to it. AI, at its core, is a tool designed to process and generate information, not to engage in the nuanced dialogue that defines effective criticism.
The New York Times’s swift response to the situation underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards in journalism. By removing Preston’s review and issuing an editor’s note, the publication demonstrated its commitment to transparency and integrity. However, the broader issue of AI in criticism remains unresolved. As the use of AI continues to grow, it is crucial for critics, publishers, and readers to engage in a thoughtful conversation about the role of technology in shaping the future of criticism.
Ultimately, the Preston incident serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of outsourcing critical thought to machines. While AI can assist in the writing process, it cannot replicate the human touch that makes criticism meaningful and impactful. The future of literary criticism will depend on striking a balance between leveraging technology and preserving the essence of human engagement with art.
