\n<\/p>\n
Grammarly released a controversial feature<\/a> last week that uses AI to simulate editorial feedback, making it seem like you\u2019re getting a critique from novelist Stephen King, the late scientist Carl Sagan, or tech journalist Kara Swisher. But Grammarly did not get permission from the hundreds of experts it included in this feature, called \u201cExpert Review,\u201d to use their names.<\/p>\n One of the affected writers, journalist Julia Angwin, has filed a class action lawsuit<\/a> against Superhuman, the parent company that owns Grammarly, arguing that the company violated the privacy and publicity rights of her and the other writers it impersonated. A class action lawsuit allows writers to join Angwin in her case.<\/p>\n \u201cI have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise,\u201d Angwin said in a statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n The situation is more than a little ironic \u2014 Angwin has spent her career leading investigations into tech companies\u2019 impacts on privacy. Other critics of this kind of technology, like renowned AI ethicist Timnit Gebru<\/a>, were also included in Grammarly\u2019s \u201cExpert Review.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201cExpert Review\u201d feature, available only to subscribers paying $144 a year, predictably fails to deliver on the promise of thoughtful feedback.<\/p>\n Casey Newton, the founder and editor of the tech newsletter Platformer and another person impersonated by Grammarly, fed one of his articles<\/a> into the tool and got feedback from Grammarly\u2019s approximation of tech journalist Kara Swisher. Grammarly\u2019s imitation of Swisher produced \u201cfeedback\u201d so generic that it raises the question of why the company would go through the rigmarole of using these writers\u2019 likenesses in the first place.<\/p>\n Here is what Grammarly\u2019s approximation of Kara Swisher told him: \u201cCould you briefly compare how daily AI users versus AI skeptics articulate risk, creating a through-line readers can follow?\u201d<\/p>\n Techcrunch event<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSan Francisco, CA<\/span> Newton relayed the message from the AI approximation of Kara Swisher to the actual, real human being, Kara Swisher.<\/p>\n \u201cYou rapacious information and identity thieves better get ready for me to go full McConaughey on you,\u201d Swisher texted Newton (referring to Grammarly). \u201cAlso, you suck.\u201d<\/p>\n Grammarly has since disabled the \u201cExpert Review\u201d feature, according to a LinkedIn post<\/a> by Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra. While Mehrotra offered an apology, he continued to defend the idea of the feature.<\/p>\n \u201cImagine 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,\u201d he wrote. \u201cFor experts, this is a chance to build that same ubiquitous bond with users, much like Grammarly has.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 13-15, 2026<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n