In the frenetic world of technology, where every innovation is often hailed as a major breakthrough, it's crucial to ask who really benefits from this "revolution." The recent fiasco surrounding Grammarly's Expert Review feature, discussed by Shishir Mehrotra, CEO of Superhuman, is a perfect example of how AI can cross ethical lines under the guise of progress.
Launched in August 2025, Expert Review promised to enhance users' writing by leveraging expert advice. A tempting idea, except these experts, including journalists like Julia Angwin, never consented to have their names used. The backlash was swift: a class-action lawsuit was filed, and the feature was quickly pulled. According to Mehrotra, "it was a pretty hidden feature. It had very little usage." But this downplaying doesn't hide the fundamental issue: the unauthorized appropriation of others' identities and work.
This case raises essential questions about the use of AI in creative fields. As reported by The Verge, the incident reflects broader concerns about the ethical implications of AI and the need for clear regulations on the use of names and images for commercial purposes. In a world where AI is increasingly integrated into our lives, protecting individual rights must be a priority.
Read more: takes your face Read more: hijacks human voicesMehrotra attempted to justify the initiative by claiming that "the claims are unfounded" and that the feature wasn't identity theft since it was clearly attributed. However, this defense seems to ignore the core issue: consent. It doesn't matter if the attribution is clear if the initial use is unauthorized. It's a matter of respecting intellectual property rights and the dignity of the individuals involved.
With 40 million daily active users and 1,500 employees, Superhuman isn't a small startup that can afford to overlook these considerations. The company quickly "killed" the feature, in Mehrotra's words, but that doesn't erase the initial mistake. This situation highlights a paradox of technological innovation: in the race for novelty, companies often forget that innovation shouldn't come at the expense of fundamental rights.
The Grammarly-Superhuman affair is a harsh reminder that AI, as powerful as it may be, must be used responsibly. Tech companies need to understand that every advancement should be accompanied by deep ethical reflection. The lack of consent in using experts' names isn't a mere oversight; it's a rights violation that deserves serious attention.
Ultimately, this incident underscores the need for stricter regulation and greater transparency in AI usage. Users, as well as the experts whose work is exploited, deserve to know how their data and identities are used. Companies must be held accountable for their actions and not hide behind excuses of "hidden features" or "low usage."
As we move forward in a world increasingly dominated by AI, it's imperative to remember that technology should serve humanity, not the other way around. Individual rights should never be sacrificed on the altar of innovation. This is a lesson that Superhuman and other tech companies would do well to heed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What was the controversy surrounding Grammarly's Expert Review feature?
The controversy arose when Grammarly's Expert Review feature, launched in August 2025, used the names of experts, including journalists, without their consent. This led to a class-action lawsuit and the feature being quickly pulled due to ethical concerns regarding unauthorized appropriation of identities.
Q: What are the ethical implications of AI in creative fields?
The incident with Grammarly highlights significant ethical concerns about AI's role in creative fields, particularly regarding the unauthorized use of individuals' names and work. It raises questions about the need for clear regulations to protect individual rights and intellectual property in an increasingly AI-driven world.
Q: How did Superhuman's CEO respond to the backlash?
Superhuman's CEO, Shishir Mehrotra, downplayed the feature's usage and claimed that the allegations of identity theft were unfounded, arguing that the feature was clearly attributed. However, this response was criticized for overlooking the fundamental issue of consent in the use of individuals' identities.