Grammarly has unveiled a newly integrated function that purports to elevate the written output of its users, drawing insights from globally renowned authors and intellects, and even certain technology reporters.
Debuting in August 2025 as one component of a wider collection of AI-driven functionalities, the Expert Review module is displayed within the peripheral panel of Grammarly’s primary compositional aid, enabling individuals to access editorial recommendations “through the lens” of domain specialists.
Wired highlighted that Grammarly presents this commentary as though it originates from distinguished literary figures, deceased or still alive. Occasionally, as reported by The Verge, the advice may even seem to emanate from technology reporters affiliated with The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, The New York Times, among other periodicals.
Naturally, a question arose in my mind: And what of TechCrunch? An initial version of this article was promptly transferred into Grammarly with the expectation of receiving counsel from my TechCrunch associates; however, the guidance I received was to integrate ethical dimensions akin to Casey Newton, to “utilize the narrative for audience connection” à la Kara Swisher, and to “articulate the broader question of responsibility” in the vein of Timnit Gebru.
This outcome proved rather disheartening: While it’s true the functionality appears somewhat inconsiderate and poorly conceived, if all those other publications receive recognition, what shortcomings do we possess?
Nonetheless, to clarify the evident point, none of these individuals seem to participate in the Expert Review process, nor have they granted Grammarly authorization to employ their appellations. Alex Gay, serving as vice president of product and corporate marketing for Grammarly’s parent corporation, Superhuman, informed The Verge that the inclusion of these specialists is due to “their published literary contributions being publicly accessible and frequently referenced.”
Furthermore, within the feature’s user manual, Grammarly asserts, “Mentions of experts within Expert Review are solely for illustrative utility and do not imply any connection to Grammarly or sanction by said persons or organizations.”
Techcrunch event
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
This explanation is fairly unambiguous, one might concede. However, it prompts the query: To what extent is Grammarly genuinely delivering an “expert review”? Possibly not at all, as historian C.E. Aubin conveyed to Wired: “These do not constitute expert reviews, given the absence of any ‘experts’ in their generation.”
{content}
Source: {feed_title}