[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
A recently-added feature in Grammarly<\/a> purports to improve users\u2019 writing with help from the world\u2019s great writers and thinkers \u2014 and some tech journalists, too.<\/p>\n Launched in August 2025<\/a> as part of a broader set of AI-powered features<\/a>, Expert Review appears in the sidebar of Grammarly\u2019s main writing assistant, allowing users to bring up revision suggestions \u201cfrom the perspective\u201d of subject matter experts.<\/p>\n Wired noted<\/a> that Grammarly frames this feedback as if it was coming from well-known authors, whether they\u2019re living or dead. In some cases, according to The Verge<\/a>, it can even appear to come from tech journalists at The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, The New York Times, and other publications.<\/p>\n Of course, I couldn\u2019t help but wonder: What about TechCrunch? I copy-pasted an early draft of this post into Grammarly in the hopes that that I might see some tips from my TC colleagues, but I was instead told to add ethical context like Casey Newton, \u201cleverage the anecdote for reader alignment\u201d like Kara Swisher, and \u201cpose the bigger accountability question\u201d like Timnit Gebru.<\/p>\n Which was all rather disappointing: Yes, the feature seems ill-conceived, but if<\/em> all those other pubs are going to get mentioned, then what are we doing wrong?<\/p>\n Anyway, to state the obvious, none of these figures appear to be involved in Expert Reviews or to have given Grammarly permission to use their names. Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Grammarly\u2019s parent company Superhuman, told The Verge that these experts are mentioned \u201cbecause their published works are publicly available and widely cited.\u201d<\/p>\n