"I make my living as a writer and an editor. This is a skill that I've honed over decades, and the idea that someone would go out and try to sell like a fake AI version of me is an existential threat to my entire way of life and to everyone who has worked to develop the same skill."
"When using the tool, Angwin's suit says, paying Grammarly customers are told the program is reading their text and finding experts to review it. After picking a relevant expert Grammarly tells customers it is applying ideas from that expert. It provides a description of the expert, the reasoning for the suggestion, and, if the person accepts it, attributes the suggestion to them."
"I'm a tech reporter. So, it's not like I've never thought about this, but I didn't think that my editing would be deepfaked. Editing is a very weird skill. I haven't created a lot of content about what my editing style is. How would you even replicate that?"
Julia Angwin, a New York Times opinion contributor and tech journalist, filed suit against Superhuman, Grammarly's parent company, for appropriating her name and professional skills in their AI-powered Expert Review editing tool. Grammarly charged customers $12 monthly for editing advice allegedly from Angwin, despite never obtaining her permission or compensation. The tool misrepresented her editing style and provided suggestions Angwin disagreed with and would never make. Customers were told the program was connecting them with expert reviewers and applying their ideas, with edits attributed to the experts. Angwin views this as an existential threat to her livelihood, describing it as deepfaking her editing skills—a nuanced professional ability that cannot be easily replicated or disclosed publicly.
Read at www.amny.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]