Grammarly will keep using authors’ identities without permission unless they opt out
Last week, my colleagues discovered that Superhuman’s Grammarly had turned me into an AI editor, using my real name, without ever asking my permission. They did the same to my boss Nilay Patel, my colleagues David Pierce and Tom Warren, and — as Wired initially reported last Wednesday — many authors far more famous than us. Grammarly’s new “Expert Review” feature uses our names to give its AI suggestions credibility that they don’t deserve.
Now, Grammarly has finally addressed the backlash — but not by apologizing, and not by walking the feature back. For now, it will graciously give us the chance to opt out of something we didn’t know it was doing to begin with.
The company also provided this statement to Casey and to The Verge, from Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Superhuman:
We’ve heard the feedback about this tool and appreciate the engagement from those who have taken the time to raise thoughtful questions about the functionality and the experts surfaced. We agree that the product experience can be improved for both users and experts. The agent was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship that add value to their work. We want the people behind those perspectives to have greater control over whether their name is used, while providing new ways for influential voices to reach new audiences. Our goal is to improve Expert Review to deliver this outcome.
There’s not a single word about “permission” in that statement, and no sign that Grammarly is walking back the idea. It sounds like the company fully intends to keep pretending real human beings are behind its edits, just with “greater control.”
For what it’s worth, we asked Superhuman whether it would provide any protection for our names other than an opt-out email. This was the reply from spokesperson Jen Dakin: “We are working on further refining the feature in addition to the opt-out option.”
Superhuman had better offer authors “greater control” over their own names than an email address, because email is a ridiculous solve for the problem.
How would we have known our names were being appropriated unless we tried the product ourselves? Shouldn’t people deserve to have their names protected even if they’ve never heard of Grammarly? Shouldn’t they have that opportunity even if they don’t know anyone who uses Grammarly? Why should we have to do the work of protecting our own names at all?
I don’t use Grammarly, and the only reason I found out my name was appropriated is because two journalists at The Verge decided to test it. We can’t do that for everyone.
Last week, my colleagues discovered that Superhuman’s Grammarly had turned me into an AI editor, using my real name, without ever asking my permission. They did the same to my boss Nilay Patel, my colleagues David Pierce and Tom Warren, and — as Wired initially reported last Wednesday — many…
Recent Posts
- How to watch France vs Ivory Coast: FREE streams, TV channels for World Cup 2026 warm-up
- Belkin’s new Joy-Con grips also boost the Switch 2’s battery life
- How to watch Spain vs Iraq: Free Streams & TV Channels for World Cup 2026 warm-up match
- TSMC struggles to keep up with AI demand: ‘We can only support so much’
- We’re giving away a Prime Day grab bag loaded with over $800 of free tech
Archives
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023