By Grammarly’s latest feature, dubbed ‘Expert Review,’ claims to supercharge your writing with advice from legendary authors and thinkers. But here’s the twist—these ‘experts’ aren’t exactly contributing from beyond the grave or even from the corner office of a tech magazine. So, what’s really going on?
The Promise of Expert Review
Launched in August 2025, Grammarly’s ‘Expert Review’ feature aimed to offer revision suggestions from the likes of famous authors and renowned journalists. It’s a nice thought—who wouldn’t want feedback from Hemingway on their prose or advice from Atwood on narrative complexity? Unfortunately, the reality doesn’t quite live up to the promise.
Who’s Really Behind the Curtain?
Despite the alluring façade, these recommendations aren’t from the actual experts themselves. Instead, they’re generated by algorithms analyzing publicly available work from these individuals. Grammarly’s feature is more a patchwork of digital impressions than a direct channel to literary legends. Wired pointed out that even though the advice might appear to be from famous writers, those authors are neither alive nor actively contributing to the tool.
The Criticism: Lack of Real-World Experts
Users expecting to receive personalized tips from their literary heroes might find themselves in a quandary. The Verge noted that even tech journalists’ names are sprinkled into the mix. But if you were hoping for insights specifically from your favorite TechCrunch writer, you’ve been led astray.
The Issue with Artificial Legitimacy
This raises a crucial question: How ethical is it for Grammarly to associate these names with feedback they’re not really providing? Grammarly defends the feature by stating that these are merely informational references and not endorsements. However, according to historian C.E. Aubin, ‘These are not expert reviews because there are no ‘experts’ involved in producing them.’
A Call for Transparency
The problem isn’t just a case of clever marketing but one of transparency. While users may initially find value in the feature, the misleading implications of having pseudo-expert advice might erode trust in the long run. After all, borrowing someone’s voice without their consent is akin to identity theft in the digital advisory world.
Conclusion: The Need for Genuine Expertise
If Grammarly wishes to position its product as a gold standard, it should consider incorporating authentic expert collaborations or clearer distinctions between AI-generated advice and human insights. Offering genuine expert reviews—perhaps through partnerships with living authors or writers—could propel the feature from a marketing gimmick to a truly valuable tool.
So, while we wait for Grammarly to refine its offering, take those ‘expert’ suggestions with a grain of salt—or better yet, a full teaspoon.
Comments