Grammarly Disables Tool Offering Generative-AI Feedback Credited To Real Writers 13
Grammarly has disabled its Expert Review feature after backlash from writers whose names were used to present AI-generated feedback without their permission. Superhuman (formerly Grammarly) CEO Shishir Mehrotra wrote in a LinkedIn post that the company will disable Expert Review while they "reimagine" the feature: Back in August, we launched a Grammarly agent called Expert Review. The agent draws on publicly available information from third-party LLMs to surface writing suggestions inspired by the published work of influential voices.
Over the past week, we received valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices. This kind of scrutiny improves our products, and we take it seriously. As context, the agent was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for experts to build deeper relationships with their fans. We hear the feedback and recognize we fell short on this. I want to apologize and acknowledge that we'll rethink our approach going forward.
After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review while we reimagine the feature to make it more useful for users, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented -- or not represented at all.
We deeply believe in our mission to solve the "last mile of AI" by bringing AI directly to where people work, and we see this as a significant opportunity for experts. For millions of users, Grammarly is a trusted writing sidekick -- ever-present in every application, ready to help. We're opening up this platform so anyone can build agents that work like Grammarly -- expanding from one sidekick to a whole team. Imagine your professor sharpening your essay, your sales leader reshaping a customer pitch, a thoughtful critic challenging your arguments, or a leading expert elevating your proposal. For experts, this is a chance to build that same ubiquitous bond with users, much like Grammarly has. But in this world, experts choose to participate, shape how their knowledge is represented, and control their business model. That future excites me, and I hope to build it with experts who want to develop it alongside us.
Over the past week, we received valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices. This kind of scrutiny improves our products, and we take it seriously. As context, the agent was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for experts to build deeper relationships with their fans. We hear the feedback and recognize we fell short on this. I want to apologize and acknowledge that we'll rethink our approach going forward.
After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review while we reimagine the feature to make it more useful for users, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented -- or not represented at all.
We deeply believe in our mission to solve the "last mile of AI" by bringing AI directly to where people work, and we see this as a significant opportunity for experts. For millions of users, Grammarly is a trusted writing sidekick -- ever-present in every application, ready to help. We're opening up this platform so anyone can build agents that work like Grammarly -- expanding from one sidekick to a whole team. Imagine your professor sharpening your essay, your sales leader reshaping a customer pitch, a thoughtful critic challenging your arguments, or a leading expert elevating your proposal. For experts, this is a chance to build that same ubiquitous bond with users, much like Grammarly has. But in this world, experts choose to participate, shape how their knowledge is represented, and control their business model. That future excites me, and I hope to build it with experts who want to develop it alongside us.
Real writers hate AI tools (Score:2)
That Grammarly thought AI tools were appropriate indicates their utter contempt for writing, and that anyone who wants to consider themselves an actual writer (as opposed to a prompt engineer using stolen work) should avoid their services.
Re: (Score:2)
That Grammarly thought AI tools were appropriate indicates their utter contempt for writing, and that anyone who wants to consider themselves an actual writer (as opposed to a prompt engineer using stolen work) should avoid their services.
I dumped Grammarly the second the started hyping their new AI features. That's been years ago now. From the few folks I interact with in my writing groups that still use it, it's only gotten more and more egregious with the AI features. Even the hold-outs are having problems justifying continuing with it. It's getting to be damned near impossible to get a grammar helper that isn't "We'll steal all your data, an in return show you several ways to make your text worse." You could hire a real editor, but sever
Re: (Score:2)
>Not sure what the solution is for those of us looking to create quality text with proper editing tools without succumbing to the AI monster.
Finding trustworthy people in face-to-face meetings, and giving up on the reach of the Internet because of the risk of scammers that a degree of anonymity creates.
Unfortunately, the profit motive pretty much guarantees there will always be some extremely motivated people poisoning any convenient well humans create.
Like, wtf did they think would happen (Score:4, Insightful)
That all the authors they cloned would just roll over and let some company impersonate them for profit?
Ungrateful bastich's (Score:3)
Really, I can't understand why anyone would object to an AI using their name and work to "deepen" the relationship between fan's and authors. Too bad the only pockets "deepened" were Grammarly pockets.
Maybe if they had sent some micro$$$ to said authors it would have gone over better. Authors are used to getting fsck'd by their publishers for pennies
Re: (Score:3)
why anyone would object to an AI using their name and work to "deepen" the relationship between fan's and authors.
This description is more suitable for the "influencer" kind of writer, who'd want every exposure possible. Others see themselves as artists and want control over whatever text goes under their name.
Maybe if they had sent some micro$$$ to said authors it would have gone over better.
The first problem is trust and respect. Before using anyone's name and image, you ask (and that might include compensation, of course). Some writers might want nothing to do with Grammarly for any reason. Sending money right away would be the worst thing to do, that would admit that there is a commercial value, a
Re: (Score:2)
I should have prefaced my previous comment with
Note : Extreme Sarcasm.
I am or have been a musician and I am sadly familiar with pico-payments.
Duh, it's an admission of guilt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey buddy.
That cute girl who can draw good, she's not hurting you by not offering you her services for free.
do you think unfocusing the definition and pleading ignorance does anything other than paint you as an entitled consumer who thinks they should be able to access things they can't produce themselves without compensating those who produced them?
If the world was made up entirely of ideals and interacting them had no cost, maybe you'd have a point.
Re:Duh, it's an admission of guilt (Score:4, Interesting)
They should have limited themselves to few options of classic authors e.g. "in the style of Hemingway". Instead they used then name of for example Kory Stamper, a live lexicographer for Marriam-Webster (see her comment on TFA / LinkedIn): "I sent my opt-out request--and an invoice for all the work I evidently did for Grammarly."
Re: (Score:2)
I hope she opts to sue the pants off of them. Unfortunately, likely not, as the lawyer would cost more than the settlement even if she prevails.