Grammarly’s CEO defends putting AI editorial suggestions into the voices of real writers (while noting it didn’t work very well)

Sometimes you just get lucky with the editorial calendar. About a month ago, Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra agreed to be a guest on Decoder, the podcast from The Verge hosted by editor-in-chief Nilay Patel. Superhuman is the company formerly known as Grammarly, which is now just one of its AI-focused productivity tools, and Mehrotra and Patel would have already had plenty to talk about. But then journalists started noticing a little-known Grammarly feature called "Expert Review," which offered users suggested improvements to whatever they were writing. But the proposed changes were framed as coming from real writing experts—journalists, novelists, academics, and more. It wasn't AI suggesting a plot twist—it was Stephen King. It wasn't AI proposing a cleaner way to explain science—it was Carl Sagan. And it wasn't AI pointing out a way to improve your tech column—it was Nilay Patel.

Writers, as one might expect, were not thrilled to see their names being used to lend credibility to AI editing suggestions. (Even me!) Technology journalist Julia Angwin filed a class-action lawsuit against Grammarly, seeking damages. By that point, Mehrotra had announced the demise of "Expert Review" after eight months, saying he wanted "to apologize and acknowledge that we’ll rethink our approach going forward."

Give Mehrotra credit for showing up for his interview with Patel anyway, which was released this morning. After a brief chat about Superhuman's product strategy overall, Patel dove straight into the dispute:

"You do not have our permission to use our names to do this. You had little check marks next to the name that indicated it was somehow official. People did not like this, I did not like this, and you removed the feature. Tell me about the decision to launch this feature with names you didn't have permission for and the decision to unlaunch the feature."

Mehrotra apologized again ("I'm really sorry about that"), admitting that the feature was a mistake. He explained that the idea behind "Expert Review" was to make the AI suggestions feel more personal and relatable. The company had partnered with a small group of writers and experts, but the collaboration was not properly disclosed, and the checkmarks next to the names suggested an official endorsement that wasn't there.

Mehrotra acknowledged that the feature was poorly executed and that the company had underestimated the backlash it would cause. He emphasized that Superhuman values transparency and user trust, and that the "Expert Review" fiasco was a learning opportunity. The company has since removed the feature and is focusing on building trust through clear communication about AI capabilities and limitations.

Patel pressed Mehrotra on whether the company had considered the ethical implications of using writers' names without permission. Mehrotra admitted that the decision-making process was flawed and that the company had not given enough thought to the potential consequences. He stressed that Superhuman is committed to being more thoughtful and transparent in its approach to AI and user trust.

The interview concluded with Mehrotra reiterating his apologies and expressing a desire to rebuild trust with the writing community. While "Expert Review" may have been a misstep, it highlighted the challenges and ethical considerations that come with integrating AI into creative processes. As companies like Superhuman continue to develop AI tools, the lessons learned from "Expert Review" serve as a reminder of the importance of transparency, user consent, and ethical AI practices.