Grammarly has disabled its AI-powered "Expert Review" feature after facing significant criticism from authors and journalists who discovered the company used real professionals' names and expertise without obtaining consent. The controversy highlights growing concerns about AI ethics in the workplace technology sector.
Feature Misused Real Expert Identities
The writing assistance platform's Expert Review tool leveraged artificial intelligence to provide feedback styled after real-world experts across various fields. However, the company failed to secure permission from many individuals whose expertise informed the AI model, including deceased professionals who could not consent to the use of their work.
The backlash came primarily from the writing and journalism communities, where professionals discovered their names and reputations were being associated with AI-generated feedback without their knowledge or approval. This raised immediate questions about intellectual property rights, professional attribution, and the ethical boundaries of AI training data.
Implications for Tech Workplace Tools
Grammarly's misstep comes as companies across sectors, including blockchain and web3 organizations, increasingly integrate AI tools into their workflows. The incident serves as a cautionary tale for technology companies developing AI-powered workplace solutions.
The company has announced it will reconsider the tool's design and implementation, though specific details about potential relaunch plans remain unclear. This pause reflects broader industry discussions about transparent AI practices and the need for explicit consent when using professionals' expertise to train AI models.
For web3 and blockchain companies building with AI—whether for documentation, code review, or community management—this controversy underscores the importance of ethical data practices. Many crypto organizations pride themselves on transparency and user consent, making this a relevant case study for the industry.
What This Means for Web3 Professionals
Technical writers, communications specialists, and content professionals in the blockchain space should monitor how workplace AI tools source their training data. As AI tools become standard in crypto companies, professionals should advocate for transparent disclosure about how these systems use expert knowledge and whether proper attribution exists.
The incident also highlights potential opportunities for blockchain-based solutions around intellectual property rights and AI training data attribution—areas where decentralized systems could provide verification and consent mechanisms that traditional tech companies have struggled to implement effectively.
