内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/890921/grammarly-ai-expert-reviews

内容总结：

近日，知名写作辅助工具Grammarly推出的“专家审阅”功能引发争议。该功能声称能基于各领域专家的写作风格提供AI修改建议，但其使用的“专家名单”中包含了大量未经本人许可的科技媒体从业者及公众人物。

据《连线》与科技媒体The Verge披露，被列入名单的包括The Verge总编辑尼尔·帕特尔、知名作家斯蒂芬·金、天文学家尼尔·泰森等多位人士，其中部分专家甚至已经离世。多位被列入名单的媒体人向The Verge表示，从未授权Grammarly使用其姓名或写作风格。

Grammarly母公司Superhuman的产品营销副总裁亚历克斯·盖伊回应称，该功能“并未声称获得专家直接参与或认可”，仅是通过分析专家已公开的作品生成建议。然而实际体验显示，功能存在多处问题：部分专家职位信息已过时；提供的“来源链接”常导向错误网页或存档页面；AI生成的建议有时甚至与对应专家的真实编辑风格相悖。

更令人担忧的是，在谷歌文档等场景中，AI建议以类似真人批注的形式呈现，易让用户产生“正获得专家亲自指导”的误解。业内人士指出，仅通过公开文本训练AI模仿专家写作风格，并不能真正复现其审稿思维与判断逻辑。

目前该功能已引发关于AI产品伦理边界、数字身份使用权及技术透明度的广泛讨论。

中文翻译：

据《连线》杂志周三报道，Grammarly的"专家审阅"功能声称能为用户提供"受"各领域专家启发的写作建议，这些专家甚至包括近期去世的教授。当我亲自试用该功能时，却发现其中某些专家令人意外——我的上司竟赫然在列。

Grammarly正在未经许可使用我们的身份信息
"专家审阅"AI助手提供的建议据称源自领域专家启发，其中包含数位The Verge的现任职员。

AI生成的反馈意见中出现了看似来自The Verge总编辑尼莱·帕特尔、特约编辑大卫·皮尔斯、高级编辑肖恩·霍利斯特与汤姆·沃伦的评注，但这四位均未授权Grammarly将其纳入"专家审阅"体系。该功能于八月上线，宣称能帮助用户"通过行业相关视角锐化信息表达"。当用户在Grammarly侧边栏点击"专家审阅"按钮时，系统会分析其文本并呈现"受"相关专家启发的AI建议。这些"行业相关视角"涵盖斯蒂芬·金、尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森、卡尔·萨根等众多人士。

The Verge还发现该功能涉及多位科技记者，包括网站前编辑凯西·牛顿与乔安娜·斯特恩、前撰稿人莫妮卡·秦、《连线》杂志劳伦·古德、彭博社马克·古尔曼与杰森·施赖尔、《纽约时报》克什米尔·希尔、《大西洋月刊》凯特琳·蒂芙尼、PC Gamer韦斯·芬伦、Gizmodo雷蒙德·王、Digital Foundry创始人理查德·莱德贝特、Tom's Guide总编辑马克·斯普纳、前Rock Paper Shotgun总编辑凯瑟琳·卡斯尔以及前IGN新闻总监凯特·贝利。部分专家描述存在信息失实问题，例如过时的职位头衔——若Superhuman事先征得本人授权引用其作品，本可准确更新这些信息。

Grammarly母公司Superhuman产品与企业营销副总裁亚历克斯·盖伊在给The Verge的声明中表示："专家审阅助手并未宣称获得相关专家的认可或直接参与，其提供的建议灵感来源于专家著作，旨在引导用户关注具有影响力的学者观点以供深入探究。"

当被问及Superhuman是否考虑过通知AI功能涉及人员或征求许可时，盖伊回应称："专家审阅中出现的专家皆因其公开发表的作品被广泛引用。"

然而，深入探究专家著作的尝试屡屡受挫。该功能频繁崩溃，其"资料来源"链接要么指向正规网站的垃圾副本，要么链接至非原始页面的存档版本。

某些资料来源甚至跳转到与所谓范例作者毫无关联的链接，这可能意味着Grammarly AI冠以某人名义提供的建议实际基于他人的作品。唯有当用户点击"查看更多"展开建议，再点击建议末尾的"资料来源"按钮时，这一情况才会显现。

此外，建议的呈现方式可能产生误导。在Google文档中，这些建议看起来与真实用户的批注相似，仿佛模拟了接受AI所模仿专家修改的体验。其中一条"受"The Verge高级编辑肖恩·霍利斯特启发的AI建议，竟要求添加上下文括号说明——而该内容早已在文中其他部分出现。问题在于，真实的肖恩·霍利斯特曾亲自指导过我的编辑工作，他向来主张避免重复或不必要的解释，强调行文应直截了当、条理清晰。

若我真采纳这条建议并请他过目，真正的肖恩很可能会删去Grammarly提议的括号内容。诚然，AI或许能海量吸收某人的文字作品并学会模仿其风格，但仅凭已发表著作——即便给程序打上专家认证标识——同样的策略永远无法教会AI掌握此人真正的编辑之道。

英文来源：

Grammarly’s “expert review” feature offers to give users writing advice “inspired by” subject matter experts, including recently deceased professors, as Wired reported on Wednesday. When I tried the feature out myself, I found some experts that came as a surprise for a different reason — one of them was my boss.
Grammarly is using our identities without permission
‘Expert Review’ AI agents make suggestions supposedly inspired by subject matter experts, including several staff members here at The Verge.
‘Expert Review’ AI agents make suggestions supposedly inspired by subject matter experts, including several staff members here at The Verge.
The AI-generated feedback included comments that appeared to be from The Verge’s editor-in-chief, Nilay Patel, as well as editor-at-large David Pierce and senior editors Sean Hollister and Tom Warren, none of whom gave Grammarly permission to include them in the “expert reviews.”
The feature, which launched in August, claims to help you “sharpen your message through the lens of industry-relevant perspectives.” When users select the “expert review” button in the Grammarly sidebar, it analyzes their writing and surfaces AI-generated suggestions “inspired by” related experts. Those “industry-relevant perspectives” include the likes of Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan, among many others.
The Verge found numerous other tech journalists named in the feature, as well, including former Verge editors Casey Newton and Joanna Stern, former Verge writer Monica Chin, Wired’s Lauren Goode, Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman and Jason Schreier, The New York Times’ Kashmir Hill, The Atlantic’s Kaitlyn Tiffany, PC Gamer’s Wes Fenlon, Gizmodo’s Raymond Wong, Digital Foundry founder Richard Leadbetter, Tom’s Guide editor-in-chief Mark Spoonauer, former Rock Paper Shotgun editor-in-chief Katharine Castle, and former IGN news director Kat Bailey. The descriptions for some experts contain inaccuracies, such as outdated job titles, which could have been accurately updated had Superhuman asked those people for permission to reference their work.
In a statement to The Verge, Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Grammarly parent company Superhuman, commented: “The Expert Review agent doesn’t claim endorsement or direct participation from those experts; it provides suggestions inspired by works of experts and points users toward influential voices whose scholarship they can then explore more deeply.”
When asked if Superhuman considered notifying the people named in its AI feature, or requesting their permission, Gay said, “The experts in Expert Review appear because their published works are publicly available and widely cited.”
However, the experts’ work proved difficult to “explore more deeply.” The feature crashed frequently and its “sources” linked to spammy copies of legit websites, or other archived copies that aren’t the actual source page.
“The experts in Expert Review appear because their published works are publicly available and widely cited.”
Some sources even went to completely unrelated links that weren’t written by the person whose work they were supposedly an example of, potentially indicating that the suggestions Grammarly’s AI offers with one person’s name may be based on a different person’s work. This is only apparent if users click “see more” to expand suggestions, then click the “source” button at the end of the suggestion.
Additionally, the way the suggestions are presented could be misleading. In Google Docs, the suggestions look similar to comments from real users, seemingly simulating the experience of receiving edits from whichever expert the AI is imitating. One suggestion from Grammarly’s AI “inspired by” Verge senior editor Sean Hollister was about adding a parenthetical with context that was already included elsewhere. The only problem is that I’ve actually been edited by the real Sean Hollister, who prefers avoiding repetitive or unnecessary explanations while using straightforward wording and organization.
If I’d taken that advice and run it by him, the real Sean probably would have removed the parenthetical Grammarly suggested. An AI might be able to ingest vast amounts of someone’s writing and learn to mimic it, sure, but the same strategy cannot teach an AI how to edit the way that person would, based only on the writing they’ve published, even if you give the bot a check mark logo and call it an “expert.”