Grammarly’s Expert Reviews Feature Comes with a Scary Realization
AI tools are moving from correcting sentences to simulating expertise. That shift is starting to worry the people being simulated.
Grammarly built its reputation fixing grammar mistakes. Now it wants to replicate expertise.
The company recently introduced an “Expert Review” feature that analyzes a document and generates feedback, inspired by” well-known writers, academics, and journalists. The idea is simple: your draft gets reviewed through the lens of recognized authorities in a field.
The problem is that those experts were never involved.
Reports found the system generating comments that seem to come from real individuals without their permission. Some users even saw feedback attributed to editors from substantial publications like The Verge and The New York Times.
Its feature relies on publicly available work and does not claim endorsement from the named experts, says Grammarly. But the presentation is where things get uncomfortable.
In tools like Google Docs, the suggestions appear visually similar to comments from a real editor. That design choice blurs the line between AI-generated advice and human critique.
For technology leaders, the controversy highlights a deeper tension in generative AI.
Large language models learn patterns from public text. That includes the tone, logic, and rhetorical habits of individual writers. Turning those patterns into a product- especially one that attaches a real person’s name- moves the conversation from training data to identity.
And identity is harder to defend as “fair use.”
The feature also exposes a practical limitation of AI expertise. Writing style can be modeled. Editorial judgment is harder. A system trained on published articles may mimic how someone writes, but that does not mean it understands how they think.
That difference matters.
AI is rapidly becoming a collaborator in professional work, from code reviews to legal drafts. But the Grammarly episode shows how quickly assistance can slip into simulation.
And once software starts simulating people, the debate is no longer about productivity. It becomes about ownership- of voice, reputation, and expertise.
