Superhuman’s AI Writing Tool Lets You Get Feedback From Dead Experts—Without Their Permission

In a move that’s raising eyebrows across academia and the tech world, Grammarly (now rebranded as “Superhuman”) has introduced a controversial new feature that allows users to receive writing feedback from AI versions of famous experts—including those who have been dead for years.

The popular writing assistant, once known primarily for grammar and spell-checking, has evolved into a full-fledged AI writing platform. The October rebranding to Superhuman introduced a suite of generative AI features designed to help users with every aspect of the writing process. These include an AI chatbot for answering questions while drafting, a paraphraser for style suggestions, a “humanizer” that revises text to match a selected voice, and even an AI grader that predicts how a document would score as college coursework.

But perhaps the most controversial addition is the “expert review” option. This feature presents users with a list of real academics and authors who can supposedly weigh in on their text. The catch? These experts have nothing to do with this process. As a disclaimer clarifies: “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.”

Users can solicit tips from virtual versions of living writers and scholars such as Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, as well as the deceased, like editor William Zinsser and astronomer Carl Sagan. Presumably, these AI agents are trained on the works of the people they’re meant to imitate, though the legality of this content-harvesting remains murky at best and is the subject of numerous copyright lawsuits.

“Our Expert Review agent examines the writing a user is working on, whether it’s a marketing brief or a student project on biodiversity, and leverages our underlying LLM to surface expert content that can help the document’s author shape their work,” explains Jen Dakin, senior communication manager at Superhuman. “The suggested experts depend on the substance of the writing being evaluated. The Expert Review agent doesn’t claim endorsement or direct participation from those experts; it provides suggestions inspired by works of experts and points users toward influential voices whose scholarship they can then explore more deeply.”

The feature has drawn criticism from academics and writers alike. Vanessa Heggie, an associate professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Birmingham, recently took to LinkedIn to share a particularly grim example. She accused Superhuman of “creating little LLMs” based on the “scraped work” of both living and dead individuals, trading on “their names and reputations.” The screenshot she posted showed the availability of analysis from an AI agent modeled on David Abulafia, an English historian of the medieval and Renaissance periods who died in January. “Obscene,” Heggie wrote.

This development raises serious questions about consent, intellectual property, and the ethics of using someone’s life’s work to create an AI simulacrum without their permission. As AI continues to advance and blur the lines between reality and simulation, the tech industry will need to grapple with these complex issues. For now, Superhuman’s feature stands as a stark reminder of the power—and potential pitfalls—of artificial intelligence in the creative sphere.

Superhuman #Grammarly #AIWriting #ArtificialIntelligence #EthicsInTech #CopyrightLaw #TechControversy #FutureOfWriting #AcademicIntegrity #DigitalEthics #AIRevolution #TechNews #Innovation #DigitalTransformation #AIReview #ExpertAI #TechEthics #ContentCreation #AILegalIssues #TechTrends

,