‘The feature was not a good feature’ — Grammarly CEO admits Experts Review didn’t work, but you may not like what replaces it | Tech Radar

Overview

‘The feature was not a good feature’ — Grammarly CEO admits Experts Review didn’t work, but you may not like what replaces it

He's not saying the class-action lawsuit has any merit

Details

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.

It's pretty obvious where Grammarly went wrong, isn't it? Blame AI. Grammarly's parent company, Superhuman, has been in hot water and facing a class action lawsuit over its use of real experts' names (and their perceived way of writing, editing, and thinking) in its now-discontinued Expert Review feature. The feature relied on AI to guess at how an expert like Tom's Guide's Mark Spoonauer might guide you in your writing.

The good news is that even Superhuman's CEO, Shishir Mehrotra, agrees that the feature was essentially terrible. Speaking with The Verge's Nilay Patel on the Decoder Podcast, Mehrotra admitted, "The feature was not a good feature. It wasn’t good for experts, it wasn’t good for users."

Mehrotra explained that he hadn't actually spent time with the Expert Review prior to the controversy, even though it launched in August 2025. Months later, investigative reporter Julia Angwin wrote in The New York Times why she was suing Grammarly after learning that she and other journalists and experts were being "turned into AI editors against their will."Angwin's class-action lawsuit appears to have triggered the removal of the Expert Review feature from Grammarly.

'People don’t trust bad AI voices': listeners rated a Chinese startup's synthetic voices higher for trust and realism than those from Microsoft, Google, and Amazon

Open AI takes steps to reduce ‘teaser-style phrasing’ in Chat GPT responses

Mehrotra, however, insisted that the feature was removed long before the lawsuit. In fact, while the Superhuman CEO repeatedly said they missed the mark with Expert Review, he also claimed the lawsuit is "without merit."

When Patel repeatedly pressed Mehrotra on how much he planned to pay Patel for the use of his, well, not exactly likeness, but persona, Mehrotra made it clear he does not believe Superhuman owes these experts anything for using their names and how they think (based on what the LLMs could glean from the Internet). Instead, he repeatedly turned to the idea that Grammarly (Superhuman) was more like You Tube.

"I think our main goal is to build a platform a lot like You Tube. You should choose to be on our platform. You should be able to choose and build an experience you trust. You should choose your business model. When you choose your business model, you should get paid for your contributions to it. That’s the model we’re working on. That’s really where I want to be."

So on the one hand, Mehrotra conceded that Expert Review was flawed and maybe poorly executed (despite the fact that it existed for months but was buried so deeply that many didn't notice). On the other hand, Superhuman (and Grammarly) will continue to lean heavily on AI to help experts build monetizable personas that users can tap into for expert guidance.

Theoretically, getting paid for the use of our knowledge is, on the surface, a good thing, but Grammarly's push into AI has, over the years, been a slippery slope and one that has not demonstrably improved the product.

The thing is, I've been a Grammarly user for years. In 2021, I documented many generally positive experiences with the tool that can live in your browser, watch everything you write, and try to help you improve it.

Much of my use was cleaning up spelling errors and typos, but I did appreciate the occasional grammar assist. All major errors are highlighted in a helpful red, and you need only hover over the offending word or phrase for a suggested fix, which you select to accept the correction.

'We're entering... a post-truth era, where it's almost impossible to tell if something's real or not'; Cameo CEO on the uncharted territory of AI

Sam Altman admits Open AI ‘screwed up’ the writing quality on Chat GPT 5.2

The 5 prompts that reveal lingering 'cringe' in Chat GPT 5.3

Over time, though, Grammarly has become more pushy, with pitches for premium assistance (I've never paid for the service) and pop-up boxes that promise to fix your writing but mostly just block your view until you dismiss them.

As the use of AI increased, Grammarly's suggestions seemed less and less helpful. Granted, I never used the Expert Review feature and do not know whether my name/persona could be found there, but some of Grammarly's suggestions and evaluations of my prose seemed off/confused, or lacking proper context.

Grammarly didn't have much choice but to dive into AI. After all, millions of people are now not only relying on AI like Chat GPT and Gemini to clean up their writing but sometimes asking the LLMs to do the writing for them.

The AI revolution was probably diminishing the perceived utility of a quiet, but helpful writing assistant like Grammarly. The company had to get more aggressive. Renaming itself Superhuman in 2025 was part of that. The company would no longer be known simply as a grammar assistant. It would be a platform and a people enhancer.

Building expert personas to assist in that mission is unsurprising. After all, AI Persona building is already a cottage industry. Late last year, I reviewed Napster View AI. While it had a suite of pre-built personas, it also let you build your own AI one and then add it to the company's library of experts.

It was mostly just weird, but at least Napster asked permission.

Grammarly got ahead of itself and built those AI experts based on real people without asking permission. Yet despite its current troubles, Superhuman wants to build an AI persona library, mainly because experts want it.

Grammarly got ahead of itself and built those AI experts based on real people without asking permission.

Grammarly got ahead of itself and built those AI experts based on real people without asking permission.

Mehrotra insisted that the idea to build the original system basically came from his discussions with You Tubers and "a really prominent book author."

"They all told me the same thing. It’s a really hard world for experts out there right now. It’s really hard to drive connection." What they're looking for is a more persistent fan connection, and, ostensibly, the Expert AI persona could be one way to do it.

Despite that goal, Grammarly (Superhuman) failed, "It didn’t deliver on either side of it, really. We ended up with an experience that was pretty suboptimal for the user and obviously suboptimal to the expert," Mehrotra told Patel.

Grammarly's Expert Reviews could return, assuming any expert wants to work with them, with both real expert permission and a revenue split between Superhuman and the living, breathing expert.

Whether or not that ever moves forward will probably depend on the outcome of Angwin's Class Action Lawsuit.

How, according to Gemini, I might edit(Image credit: Future)

How, according to Gemini, Patel might edit(Image credit: Future)

How a Stephen King persona might do it.(Image credit: Future)

Gemini tries for a me-type conclusion(Image credit: Future)

Gemini offers the Patel approach to a wrap-up(Image credit: Future)

How the master of horror might conclude things, according to Gemini(Image credit: Future)

In the meantime, I was struck by something else Mehrotra said. He was talking about how desperate people are for guidance from someone they admire, "They try to do that today with LLMs. They go to Chat GPT and Claude and say, 'What would Nilay think about my writing?' That was the inspiration for what the user was trying to do."

It hadn't occurred to me that Claude, Chat GPT, or Gemini could not only help you improve your writing but might also have insight from well-known writers.

As an experiment, I handed Gemini a link to a general tech news story from Tech Radar and asked it, "If Lance Ulanoff were reading and editing this post, what would he say?"

The response was detailed and compared the original text with how I might approach the text. It even crafted a potential social media post in my voice. When I switched it to The Verge's Nilay Patel, the response was no less detailed. Gemini compared my approach to his and, yes, wrote a Patel-style conclusion. Naturally, I had to try Stephen King. The LLM gave him the same treatment, with a detailed analysis of the writing and a King-style conclusion.

My point is, yes, what Grammarly did was wrong and off-putting. Offering "experts' as if they had permission is wrong (the fine print made it clear they did not, and these were not the real people), but it's only one step removed from what is possible today on most other mager AI platforms.

Gemini did not hesitate to attempt to write in my, Patel, or King's voice. None of us is being paid for the analysis which is being offered in our names.

Perhaps the Grammarly/Superhuman lawsuit will set a precedent for the use of our personas across all kinds of media. But I doubt it. At best, this gets settled out of court; at worst, it gets dismissed entirely. At least Grammarly was embarrassed into removing the feature. But like a game of whack-a-mole, this won't be the last pirate persona army to take our names in vain.

Follow Tech Radar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And of course, you can also follow Tech Radar on You Tube and Tik Tok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on Whats App too.

A 38-year industry veteran and award-winning journalist, Lance has covered technology since PCs were the size of suitcases and “on line” meant “waiting.” He’s a former Lifewire Editor-in-Chief, Mashable Editor-in-Chief, and, before that, Editor in Chief of PCMag.com and Senior Vice President of Content for Ziff Davis, Inc. He also wrote a popular, weekly tech column for Medium called The Upgrade.

Lance Ulanoff makes frequent appearances on national, international, and local news programs including Live with Kelly and Mark, the Today Show, Good Morning America, CNBC, CNN, and the BBC.

You must confirm your public display name before commenting

1I want to love Marathon but can already see why players are falling off its miserable grind

2'We're supposed to start prepping on it soon': The Mummy 4 gets its first tease from Ready or Not 2 directors — it's going to be chaotic

3 Samsung has smart glasses landing later this year — here are 4 details leaks have already revealed, including displays and XR apps

4I switched back to earbuds after using headphones for three years — here’s what I have and haven’t missed

5 Apple sets WWDC for June 8 — and this may be its last best chance to fix Siri and deliver the AI we were promised

Tech Radar is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

© Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Key Takeaways

• ‘The feature was not a good feature’ — Grammarly CEO admits Experts Review didn’t work, but you may not like what replaces it

• He's not saying the class-action lawsuit has any merit

• When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission

• It's pretty obvious where Grammarly went wrong, isn't it

• The good news is that even Superhuman's CEO, Shishir Mehrotra, agrees that the feature was essentially terrible