The episode quickly became a test of whether creator consent could be handled through a reactive removal process. Related coverage indicates the feature was later disabled after the backlash, while a proposed lawsuit put the underlying use of writers’ identities under further scrutiny.
First-order effects
Authors whose styles or identities were used as inspiration can ask Superhuman to remove them from Grammarly’s Expert Review feature through the dedicated address.
Superhuman must now process and honor individual exclusion requests while maintaining the feature for any writers who have not opted out.
Second-order effects
The email-only mechanism shifts the burden to affected writers to discover the feature and request removal, making the adequacy of Superhuman’s consent process a central reputational issue.
Other AI writing-product teams face a clearer incentive to review features built around identifiable creators before launch, rather than relying on post-backlash opt-outs.
Third-order effects
If creator-name and style simulation becomes a recurring product category, opt-in licensing and clearer attribution may become a more durable operating model than reactive exclusions.
The trend: This is one instance of generative-AI companies being pushed from broad implied permission toward explicit creator controls for products that invoke identifiable people.
so it is incumbent upon ME for opting out of YOU using ME as the voice of your AI “expert” ? this screams eventual lawsuit https://www.theverge.com/... [image]
I've decided that instead of wasting my own time to see if Grammarly has stolen my name and writing for use their business, I'd just email them to opt out and make them waste some time cleaning up their own goddamn mess. — www.platformer.news/grammarly- ex... [image]
What, and I mean this most sincerely, The Absolute Fuck? — By default, Grammarly's new “Expert Review” feature uses users'/writers' names to give its AI suggestions credibility. And it's opt-OUT not opt-IN. And they didn't tell anyone they'd started doing it.
“Indeed, no one asked me for permission to use my name in this way, much less compensate me for whatever expert-reviewing labor my AI clone was apparently now doing on my behalf. (An annual subscription to Grammarly costs $144.)”
“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.”
100% the inclusion of @timnitgebru.bsky.social in Grammarly's fake “expert review” feature was a bit of slimy, acidic trolling from some juvenile AI dudebro. Just unbelievably nasty — Reminds me how Altman picked Miyazaki's aesthetic for a viral trend as revenge — www.platfo…
“The company tells Platformer it will let experts opt out of the controversial feature — but how different is it than what every other AI company is doing?” — Burn this to the ground then salt the earth. — www.platformer.news/grammarly- ex...
Wait, what?! Grammarly made an AI persona of me and all these other journalists?!!!!! — Thank you @caseynewton.bsky.social for shaming them into at least offering a paltry optout— although obviously that is not enough. — www.platformer.news/grammarly- ex...
“But for both ‘expert review’ and chatbots in general, my underlying discomfort is the same. Most of my published work appears already to be inside these models, shaping their outputs in ways I never agreed to and will never fully understand. Grammarly just had the bad manners …
I'm sorry, they're exploiting people's reputations and implying users are benefitting from their expertise without their knowledge or permission and have the AUDACITY to put the onus on their damn victims to opt out?!??! — www.platformer.news/grammarly- ex...