[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Superhuman has taken its writing assistant Grammarly on quite the merry-go-round ride regarding its approach to AI tools. In August, the company launched a feature called Expert Review that would offer feedback on your writing, offering AI-generated feedback that would appear to come from a famous writer or academic of note. These recreations were based on “publicly available information from third-party LLMs,” which sounds a lot like web crawlers of dubious legality were involved.<\/p>\n
The suggested experts would be based on the subject matter and could be anyone from great scientific minds to bestselling fiction authors to your friendly neighborhood tech bloggers. Living or dead, these writers’ names appeared on Grammarly without their permission or knowledge. “References to experts in this product are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities,” the company hedged in a disclaimer on the service.<\/p>\n
As one might imagine, once people took notice, a large number of the living contingent of those writers were none too pleased<\/a> with Grammarly and Superhuman. The company initially attempted to address the complaints by allowing writers to opt out<\/a> of the platform. Which I’m sure was a big relief to the deceased contingent and to those living ones who aren’t closely following AI news and might still not know they were being cited by the tool.<\/p>\n Today, Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra wrote in a LinkedIn post<\/a> that the company will disable Expert Review while it reassesses the feature. “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,” he said. Yes, Carl Sagan must be bemoaning the lack of deep relationships with his fans from the afterlife.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n