Grammarly's 'expert review' is just missing the actual experts | TechCrunch
Briefly

Grammarly's 'expert review' is just missing the actual experts | TechCrunch
"Launched in August 2025 as part of a broader set of AI-powered features, Expert Review appears in the sidebar of Grammarly's main writing assistant, allowing users to bring up revision suggestions "from the perspective" of subject matter experts. Wired noted that this Grammarly frames this feedback as if it was coming from well-known authors, whether they're living or dead."
"Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Grammarly's parent company Superhuman, told The Verge that these experts are mentioned "because their published works are publicly available and widely cited." And in its user guide to the feature, Grammarly says, "References to experts in Expert Review are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities.""
"In some cases, according to The Verge, it can even appear to come from tech journalists at The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, The New York Times, and other publications. Of course, I couldn't help but wonder: What about TechCrunch? I copy-pasted an early draft of this post into Grammarly in the hopes that that I might see some tips from my TC colleagues, but I was instead told to add ethical context like Casey Newton."
Grammarly launched Expert Review in August 2025, an AI-powered feature that provides writing revision suggestions attributed to well-known figures including deceased authors, living thinkers, and tech journalists from major publications. The feature frames feedback as coming from these individuals based on their publicly available published works. However, none of these people appear to be involved with the feature or have granted permission for their names to be used. Grammarly clarifies that expert references are for informational purposes only and do not indicate affiliation or endorsement. This raises questions about the appropriateness of attributing AI-generated suggestions to real people without their consent.
Read at TechCrunch
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]