Grammarly Disables Tool Offering Generative-AI Feedback Credited To Real Writers
- Reference: 0180955356
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/03/11/2121238/grammarly-disables-tool-offering-generative-ai-feedback-credited-to-real-writers
- Source link:
> 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.
[1] https://www.grammarly.com/ai-agents
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/29/2110239/grammarly-rebrands-to-superhuman-launches-a-new-ai-assistant
[3] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/shishirmehrotra_back-in-august-we-launched-a-grammarly-agent-activity-7437552603737059328-vzTe?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABVVmQABBXehqjStIT5u9Cj19eedFbQhzoE
Like, wtf did they think would happen (Score:2)
That all the authors they cloned would just roll over and let some company impersonate them for profit?
Ungrateful bastich's (Score:2)
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
Duh, it's an admission of guilt (Score:2)
Whereas "inspired" really means stolen from. I guess that their legal department sussed things out.
Re: (Score:2)
Like software or music, nothing was stolen. The original is still there.
Unless you're saying software and music can also be stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
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.