Grammarly’s ‘expert review’ is just missing the actual experts

Grammarly's Bold AI Experiment: Expert Advice or Just a Clever Mimic?

I've always believed that clear, compelling writing is a superpower for entrepreneurs crafting pitches to investors. So, when I heard about Grammarly's latest AI feature, Expert Review, I was intrigued. Launched last August, it promises to refine your prose by channeling the 'perspectives' of renowned authors, thinkers, and even journalists from top outlets like Wired and The Verge. Imagine getting tips styled after literary giants or sharp tech commentators right in your sidebar—sounds like a game-changer for busy founders polishing their decks.

But digging deeper, as this article from TechCrunch does so astutely, reveals some cracks in the facade. The suggestions aren't from actual experts; they're AI-generated impressions based on public writings. No permissions, no endorsements—just handy references to borrow a voice. The piece cleverly highlights the irony: why spotlight certain publications while overlooking others, like TechCrunch itself? It even shares a humorous trial where the tool suggested emulating reporters on ethics and anecdotes, leaving the author wistfully wondering about their own team's inclusion.

At its core, the article questions the feature's authenticity. As one historian points out, these aren't true expert reviews without real involvement. It's a reminder in our AI-driven world that tools can inspire but shouldn't replace genuine insight—much like how entrepreneurs need more than a template to win over angels.

Curious about how this could sharpen your storytelling? Dive into the full TechCrunch piece for the witty details and broader implications.