
This Year's Hot New Tool for Chefs? ChatGPT.
Her glittering resume is all the more impressive when you recall that Escoffier has been dead since 1935.
Where did Grant Achatz, the chef and an owner of Next, find this prodigy? In conversations with ChatGPT, Achatz supplied the chatbot with this chef's name, Jill, along with her work history and family background, all of which he invented. Then he asked it to suggest dishes that would reflect her personal and professional influences.
If all goes according to plan, he will keep prompting the program to refine one of Jill's recipes, along with those of eight other imaginary chefs, for a menu almost entirely composed by artificial intelligence.
'I want it to do as much as possible, short of actually preparing it,' Achatz said.
As generative AI has grown more powerful and fluent over the past decade, many restaurants have adopted it for tracking inventory, scheduling shifts and other operational tasks. Chefs have not been anywhere near as quick to ask the bots' help in dreaming up fresh ideas, even as visual artists, musicians, writers and other creative types have been busily collaborating with the technology.
That is slowly changing, though. Few have plunged headfirst into the pool in quite the way Achatz is doing with his menu for Next, but some of his peers are also dipping exploratory toes into the water, asking generative AI to suggest spices, come up with images showing how a redesigned space or new dish might look, or give them crash courses on the finer points of fermentation.
'I'm still learning how to maximize it,' said Aaron Tekulve, who finds the technology helpful for keeping track of the brief seasonal windows of the foraged plants and wild seafood from the Pacific Northwest that he cooks with at Surrell, his restaurant in Seattle. 'There's one chef I know who uses it quite a bit, but for the most part I think my colleagues don't really use it as much as they should.'
The pinball-arcade pace of a popular restaurant can make it hard for chefs to break with old habits. Others have objections that are philosophical or aesthetic.
'Cooking remains, at its core, a human experience,' chef Dominique Crenn wrote in an email. 'It's not something I believe can or should be replicated by a machine.' Crenn said she has no intention of inviting a computer to help her with the menus at Atelier Crenn in San Francisco.
It is true that generative AI consumes vast amounts of electricity and water. Then there are the mistakes. According to OpenAI, the company that owns ChatGPT, 500 million people a week use the program. But it is still wildly prone to delivering factual errors in a cheerily confident tone. (The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, the creators of ChatGPT and other AI programs, alleging they violated copyright law by training their chatbots with millions of Times articles. The two companies have denied that.)
None of the chefs I interviewed takes the chatbot's information at face value, and none will blindly follow any recipe it suggests. Then again, they don't trust most of the recipes they find in cookbooks or online, either.
Cooks, like other humans, are forgetful, distracted and hemmed in by their own experiences. AI has its shortcomings, but these aren't among them. Chefs who consult the big electronic brain when they're devising a new dish or dining room find it helpful for the same reason bands like working with producer Brian Eno: Some of its suggestions are so unexpected that it can jolt them out of a creative rut.
'You can get really hyper-specific ideas that are out of the box,' said Jenner Tomaska, a chef in Chicago. For the Alston, a steakhouse he opened Friday, Tomaska wanted a variation on the Monégasque fried pastry known as barbajuan. ChatGPT's earliest suggestions were a little basic, but as he fed it more demanding prompts — for instance, a filling that would reflect Alain Ducasse's style, steakhouse traditions and local produce — the fillings got more interesting. How about Midwestern crayfish, white miso and fresh dill, with pickled celery root on the side?
'It's a little bizarre, because I like to talk through these things with people, and I'm doing it with something that doesn't exist, per se,' Tomaska said. But arming himself with ideas from his solitary talks with ChatGPT, he said, 'does help bring better conversation to the creative process when I do have someone in front of me.'
Visual renderings from AI helped chef Dave Beran talk to the architect and designer of his latest restaurant, Seline, in Santa Monica, California. He wanted a vibe that drew something from the shadowy, dramatic interiors of Aska in Brooklyn and Frantzén in Stockholm, but held more warmth. He kept prompting Midjourney to get closer to the feeling he wanted, asking it, for example, what if we had a fireplace that I wanted to curl up beside?
'That was the mood we were trying to capture,' Beran said. 'Not dark and moody, but magical and mysterious.'
Midjourney's images looked like fantasy artwork, he thought. But the program acted as what he called 'a translator' between him and his designer, giving them a common language.
At the moment, AI can't build a restaurant or cook a piece of Dover sole. Humans have to interpret and carry out its suggestions, which makes the dining rooms and dishes inspired by AI in restaurants less unsettling than AI-generated art, which can go straight from the printer to a gallery wall. True, some chef may put a half-baked idea from ChatGPT on the menu, but plenty of chefs are already do this with their own half-baked ideas. For now, AI in restaurants is still inspiration rather than the final product.
Since Achatz's first serious experiments with ChatGPT, about a year ago, it has become his favorite kitchen tool, something he used to say about Google. Its answers to his questions about paleontology and Argentine cuisine helped him create a dish inspired by Patagonian fossils at his flagship restaurant, Alinea.
Before opening his latest restaurant, Fire, in November, he consulted ChatGPT to learn about cooking fuels from around the world, including avocado pits and banana peels. It has given him countless ideas for the sets, costumes and storylines of a theatrical dining event somewhat in the mode of 'Sleep No More' that he will present this summer in Beverly Hills, California.
Asked to evaluate how well Jill had integrated her training from Escoffier and Adrià in the dishes she proposed for Next, Achatz responded in an email.
'Jill knows or researched important chefs and their styles, which very few chefs under 40 process today,' he wrote. 'She is young, and while experienced, does not yet have the understanding of how to blend them seamlessly.'
Years ago, he had similar blue-sky conversations at the end of the night with the talented cooks who worked with him at Alinea and Next, including Beran. He finds that batting ideas back and forth is 'not of interest' for some of his current sous-chefs.
'That dialogue is something that simply does not exist anymore and is the lifeblood of progress,' he said.
ChatGPT, though, will stay up with him all night. —NYT

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Observer
a day ago
- Observer
The consequences of not banning AI in schools
I received an overwhelming amount of response in the form of feedback via social media networks, instant messages (WhatsApp) and even direct calls on last week's article on banning AI in schools. I am truly grateful for the engagement that I received from the readers because this shows the importance as well as the alertness that the society has in store for the subject. Some shared their strong agreement and warned that unchecked AI could surely affect our children (the students) in schools. This includes but is not limited to their thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills, to name a few. Others, however, have expressed concern that banning AI in schools might limit their technological literacy, suggesting instead that schools should focus on teaching responsible and ethical use. My personal feedback that I continue to stand by is putting a framework and policy in place on the usage of AI in schools. This will help ensure AI is used correctly, potentially making it a powerful tool for personalised training. The situation today, however, is that there is not readily a policy and framework in place, and hence, the impact is inevitable. Let me focus this week on the consequences of not banning AI in schools. First, the students' critical thinking skills will be impacted. Why? The student simply uses a generative AI app (like ChatGPT) by asking a question (in the form of a prompt), and the answer arrives instantly (merely in seconds). The student doesn't struggle nor work hard but simply copies the answer/output and presents AI's work (not theirs). In the pre-AI era, a student would be required to critically think by searching and analysing different possibilities before finally presenting and solving a problem/question. Second, generative AI will be like a drug (an addiction) for the students. Without it, students will not be able to work on any assignment/problem due to being dependent on AI. Imagine tomorrow there is no connectivity and/or a plug is pulled off from ChatGPT and the like apps. Trust me, there will be zombies walking around the schools. Third, with dependency and addiction comes also a form of laziness. Students will see no reason to learn or work if AI can do everything for them. The mental resilience that the pre-generative AI era lived in will be shattered, trust me. Last but not least, originality (in terms of thoughts and creativity) will be lost. Outputs of an AI app are generated based on patterns in and from existing data. Students that depend on AI will ultimately lose the ability to create original content. We will eventually find the same generic work submitted by everyone, for they all rely on the same source, the AI machine. To conclude my article this week, I would like to emphasise that if this matter is not taken seriously, then the majority of the students (and no thanks to the continuous advancement of AI) will graduate without ever having written an essay, solved a math problem on their own, or struggled through a difficult assignment. Students will not only not have the skills that are required to join the workforce but also not have the basic knowledge to operate as well. Mark my words, quality education built on hard work will be erased in schools gradually. Diplomas and degrees will lose credibility, as no one can be certain whether the work was produced by the student or by a machine. We will create a new generation of graduates that knows where and how to find information but cannot function without constant access to AI. Until we catch up again next week, stay positive and upbeat, and never be too reliant on AI, as it may replace or break you too.


Observer
6 days ago
- Observer
Iconic French chef stakes reputation on vegan menu
Paris - Celebrated French chef Alain Passard has made history once again. The 68-year-old has become the first three-Michelin-star chef in France to switch to an entirely plant-based menu, opening a new chapter in the world of luxury dining. Since July 21, Passard has stopped serving meat, fish, dairy products, and eggs at L'Arpege, his restaurant in the French capital's chic seventh district that he has run for nearly 40 years. The only exception is honey that comes from the restaurateur's beehives. Passard said the switch had been in the pipeline for a year. "There's light in this cuisine," he told AFP. "There are taste sensations that I've never experienced anywhere else." L'Arpege used to be known as one of the leading restaurants in Paris. It earned three Michelin stars in 1996 and has held the distinction ever since. In 2001, Passard caused a stir in the rarefied world of French cuisine by dropping red meat from his menu and saying he would focus more on vegetables grown in his gardens. The shift made him one of the first ambassadors of plant-based cuisine. While Passard is motivated by environmental concerns in his new quest, it is above all a culinary challenge. The restaurant's updated menu includes mesclun praline with roasted almonds and melon carpaccio. Lunch costs 260 euros. Passard has no plans to become a vegan militant himself. "I still eat a little poultry and fish," he said. "But I'm more comfortable with plants. They allow me to learn." - 'Colossal task' French chef Claire Vallee knows from experience that Passard is up for a challenge. "It requires a lot more preparation, knowledge, and research," Vallee said of plant-based dishes. "It's quite a colossal task." In 2021, her vegan restaurant in southwest France won a Michelin star, the first for an establishment serving only animal-free products in France. Vallee in 2016 launched ONA -- which stands for Origine Non Animale ("Non-Animal Origin") -- thanks to crowd-funding from supporters and a loan from a green bank. The establishment closed in 2022, and the 45-year-old chef went on to open several pop-up restaurants. Since then, no other French restaurant serving only animal-free products has been awarded a Michelin star. Internationally, vegan haute cuisine is rare. Eleven Madison Park in New York has kept its three stars after becoming exclusively vegan in 2021. In the Netherlands, De Nieuwe Winkel's plant-based menu has earned it two Michelin stars. Laurent Guez, a food critic for French newspaper Le Parisien and business daily Les Echos, said Passard's announcement was "a major event". But he also warned that not a lot of chefs could excel in the art of high-end plant-based gastronomy. "It's exceptional cuisine that not everyone can allow themselves to launch into," he said. Michelin guide international director Gwendal Poullennec said he was "delighted" with the transition at L'Arpege, describing it as a "positive approach". "We will continue to follow the evolution of L'Arpege, remaining faithful to our criteria," he told AFP. Passard has given himself two years to take his kitchen skills to a new level. Is he worried about losing his three stars? "I've never thought about that," he said. "We're going to have to deliver. If we can maintain this level of quality, then I'm extremely confident."


Observer
04-08-2025
- Observer
Should AI be banned in schools?
Students have started to find academic work, be it for school, college, or a university, super easy. In fact, educators such as teachers in schools, as well as professors in colleges and universities, along with knowledge workers, such as the administrative staff in these academic institutions, have recently started to write and post creative/intelligent topics on social media platforms like never before. The question is, however, what has really changed? In simple words, the rise and utilisation of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) apps. What is literally the problem? Unfortunately, the machines do the majority of that beautiful work/content that we see produced and delivered. This is serious in my humble opinion, and I see a disaster in terms of the quality of graduates whom we expect to be leading the nation tomorrow. My article this week is about the danger and the negative impact that AI is having on the education sector and whether a ban on AI must be made at schools in order to save students and related teachers/educators from becoming obsolete. Today, homework is literally solved easily and submitted instantly. A presentation is generated and delivered flawlessly. Academicians and the administrative staff working for the institutions continuously publish interesting and thought-provoking articles on the social media networks as opposed to the pre-generative AI era. Some of those administrative staff had never been so engaged on social media or similar publications before. However, a dangerous truth lies under this polished surface. Virtually none of the academic stakeholders (students, teachers, professors, and/or administrative staff) are learning or originally producing the content, but the machines (powered by AI) are doing the job for them. Being a technologist myself and someone that has promoted the use of technology since a very young age, I would not deny the positive transformation that AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini (previously known as Bard), Co-pilot, Claude, and Perplexity have been doing for all the industries and sectors, including education per se. However, the reliance on these technologies, especially the generative AI consumer apps, is very dangerous. Why? Because there will be no quality work or growth from the students and the generation that we would depend on to run our nation tomorrow. Simply logging into one of the generative AI apps, keying in a prompt (a smart question), and then generating an essay or a report in seconds involves no serious thinking nor creative work being produced, but rather a copy-and-paste approach that even a savvy toddler would probably be able to do in the very near future. I am not against using AI apps as a helper, but not relying entirely on the same. What should therefore be done to save humanity? My suggestion is simply to ban AI, especially in schools, until a proper framework and policies are created/available in place. Why? Because the cost of doing nothing (and continuing as it is today) may result in having students who can no longer think, write, or solve problems without the use of generative AI apps. I know some would argue the same about calculators, yet this has matured now, and the same would most probably happen with AI generative apps too in the future (as they get bigger in scope and the kind of things they can generate and do as machines too). A 2024 survey by Turnitin showed that over 67% of students have used AI to complete assignments, many without fully understanding the content. Teachers report students submitting work well above their ability, then failing when asked to explain it. The message is clear, i.e., students are not learning more but are just copying better. Furthermore, I personally have witnessed a number of teachers/educators who now post amazing articles using AI tools. For a proof in a pudding, check LinkedIn today and compare the same with the pre-Gen AI era. To conclude my article this week, I would like to emphasise that the vital damage of what AI would be doing to school may be permanent if action is not taken now. Students that graduate tomorrow will highly depend on AI for any task or job given. The question is, if AI can do the job, then why employ graduates as extra baggage? I leave the thought of whether to ban AI in schools to you until we catch up again next week. Stay tuned.