Superhuman’s Grammarly has responded to recent controversy without offering an apology or committing to an overall change in direction regarding its new "Expert Review" feature.
The issue came to light last week when several colleagues, including myself, discovered that Grammarly had integrated our real names into its AI editor, effectively turning us into "AI editors" without our consent. This practice extended to my boss Nilay Patel, colleagues David Pierce and Tom Warren, and, as initially reported by Wired, many other prominent authors. The core concern is that Grammarly's "Expert Review" feature leverages our names to lend undeserved credibility to its AI-generated suggestions.
Grammarly has now addressed the significant backlash, yet its response notably lacks an apology or any indication of rolling back the controversial feature. Instead, the company is offering individuals the opportunity to opt-out of a functionality they were previously unaware they were part of.
My former colleague Casey Newton, in a recent issue of Platformer, reported that Grammarly declined his request for an interview with CEO Shishir Mehrotra. However, the company informed him that, in response to criticisms, experts would be able to opt out of the feature by sending an email to [email protected].
Additionally, Alex Gay, Vice President of Product & Corporate Marketing at Superhuman, provided the following statement to both Casey Newton and The Verge:
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.
It is noteworthy that this statement contains no mention of "permission" and offers no indication that Grammarly intends to discontinue the feature. The language suggests that the company plans to continue attributing its AI edits to real individuals, albeit with a promise of "greater control" for those individuals.
We subsequently inquired with Superhuman whether any protections for our names beyond an opt-out email would be provided. Spokesperson Jen Dakin responded, stating: “We are working on further refining the feature in addition to the opt-out option.”
It is imperative that Superhuman provides authors with more robust "greater control" over their names than simply an email address, as this method is an insufficient solution to the problem at hand.
A fundamental question remains: how would individuals have known their names were being appropriated unless they actively tested the product themselves? Shouldn't everyone be entitled to have their names protected, regardless of whether they are familiar with Grammarly or know anyone who uses it? The burden of proactively protecting one's own name in such a scenario should not fall on the individual.
I personally do not use Grammarly, and my own discovery of this appropriation only occurred because two journalists at The Verge undertook the effort to test the product. This approach is clearly not scalable for everyone affected.
The Editorial Staff at AIChief is a team of professional content writers with extensive experience in AI and marketing. Founded in 2025, AIChief has quickly grown into the largest free AI resource hub in the industry.