AI Writing Advice From People Who Never Agreed to Give It

Grammarly has drawn sharp criticism after its "expert review" feature was found to generate AI writing feedback attributed to real journalists, editors, and academics — none of whom gave the company permission to use their names and likenesses. The feature, which launched in August 2025, offers users writing advice "inspired by" subject matter experts, but the execution has raised serious questions about consent and identity rights in the age of AI.

The controversy escalated when The Verge discovered that its own editorial staff had been included as "experts" in the system. Editor-in-chief Nilay Patel, editor-at-large David Pierce, and senior editors Sean Hollister and Tom Warren all appeared as available reviewers within Grammarly's interface — none of whom had any relationship with the feature or had granted Grammarly permission to use their identities.

Beyond Journalists: Deceased Academics as AI Proxies

As Wired first reported, the issue extends far beyond living journalists. Grammarly's expert review system also includes recently deceased professors, effectively resurrecting their professional personas as AI-generated writing coaches. The inclusion of dead academics raises particularly thorny ethical questions, as these individuals can never consent to having their expertise and reputation leveraged by an AI system.

The feature works by analyzing writing and generating feedback comments that appear to come from these "experts." Users see suggestions framed as reviews from specific named individuals, creating an impression of personal endorsement that does not actually exist. The AI generates the commentary, but the attribution to real people lends it an air of authority that generic AI feedback would lack.

How the Feature Works

  • Users can select from a roster of subject matter "experts" to review their writing
  • The AI generates feedback styled as if it came from the selected expert
  • Comments appear with the expert's name, creating an illusion of personal review
  • No consent was obtained from the individuals whose names are used