内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/grammarly-is-facing-a-class-action-lawsuit-over-its-ai-expert-review-feature/

内容总结：

知名写作辅助软件Grammarly的母公司Superhuman近日在美国纽约南区联邦法院被提起集体诉讼，指控其人工智能工具擅自使用数百位作家、学者及记者的姓名与身份标识提供编辑建议，涉嫌侵犯个人权益。调查新闻机构The Markup创始人、普利策奖得主朱莉娅·安格温作为本案唯一具名原告，代表潜在超过五百万美元损失的受影响群体提起诉讼。

诉状指出，Grammarly去年推出的"专家审阅"AI功能在未经许可的情况下，将安格温与斯蒂芬·金、尼尔·泰森等各界人士虚拟形象作为文本修改建议来源，构成对个人姓名与肖像的商业盗用。尽管产品曾标注"专家未参与工具开发"，但多位被提及人士表示强烈不满。

诉讼提起前，Superhuman已因舆论压力宣布暂停该功能。产品管理总监艾莲·甘公开致歉称："我们本意是帮助用户获取专家见解，但显然未能达到预期。未来将重新设计功能，确保专家对自身形象呈现拥有控制权。"公司CEO同日也在领英平台承认收到专家关于"AI扭曲其观点"的批评。

安格温向媒体表示，得知自己的数字分身提供"质量低劣且偏离主题"的写作建议时感到震惊："这不仅是平淡无奇的建议，甚至让文本变得更糟。我原以为深度伪造只会困扰名人，没想到普通新闻工作者也会卷入。"其代理律师强调，纽约和加州法律明确禁止未经授权的商业身份盗用，此案对规范AI时代的知识产权保护具有广泛意义。

目前Superhuman未对诉讼发表进一步评论。本案折射出人工智能应用与个人权益保护的边界争议，引发科技伦理领域的持续关注。

中文翻译：

开发写作软件Grammarly的科技公司Superhuman正面临一起集体诉讼，起因是其人工智能工具在提供编辑建议时，将建议伪造成来自知名作家和学者——而这些人士均未同意自己的名字出现在产品中。

该诉讼的唯一具名原告是朱莉娅·安温，她是一位屡获殊荣的调查记者，创立了关注技术对社会影响的非营利新闻机构The Markup。诉讼虽未提出具体赔偿金额，但主张原告群体的损失总额超过500万美元。此前，安温与斯蒂芬·金、尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森等众多人士的名字，都通过Grammarly的"专家审阅"工具作为虚拟编辑推荐给用户。

周三下午在纽约南区提起的联邦诉讼指出，安温代表自己及其他处境相似者，"质疑Grammarly盗用数百名记者、作家和编辑的姓名与身份为Grammarly及其所有者Superhuman牟利"。此时Superhuman已因强烈的公众反弹决定停用该功能。

Superhuman产品管理总监艾莲·甘在诉讼提交前向《连线》杂志声明："经慎重考虑，我们决定停用专家审阅功能，并重新构思该功能以提升用户实用性，同时让专家能真正掌控自己是否及如何被呈现。我们开发此工具的初衷是帮助用户汲取思想领袖与专家的见解，并为专家提供分享知识、触达新受众的途径。根据收到的反馈，我们显然未能实现目标。我们深表歉意，未来将采取不同做法。"

据《连线》本月早些时候报道，Superhuman去年在平台上新增了一系列人工智能工具，其中一项声称能让资深作家（无论在世或已故）对用户文本提出批评。尽管免责声明指出被引用的所有人士均未认可或直接参与该基于大语言模型的工具开发，但包括《连线》记者在内的多位作家对Grammarly擅自使用其形象、并通过AI工具复述其毕生作品感到愤慨。

安温的代理律师彼得·罗默-弗里德曼指出，Superhuman总部所在的纽约州和加州早有法律明确禁止未经许可将个人姓名与形象用于商业用途。他告诉《连线》："从法律角度看，我们认为此案相当明确。更广泛而言，我们提起诉讼的原因之一，是看到当今社会许多专业人士——比如朱莉娅耗费数十年磨砺专业技能——他们的姓名或技艺正被他人擅自盗用。"

作为《纽约时报》专栏作家，安温长期撰文批评硅谷巨头在21世纪侵蚀隐私的行为。诉讼书强调："与某些科技公司的认知相反，无论当事人是否知名，擅自盗用他人姓名与身份牟利均属违法。通过本次诉讼，安温女士旨在阻止Grammarly及其所有者Superhuman利用她及数百名记者、作家、编辑乃至律师的名义进行交易，并制止Grammarly将从未由他们说过的话、从未给过的建议强加于他们。"

安温向《连线》透露，当她从科技通讯Platformer得知Grammarly盗用其姓名与声誉时，对自己"被克隆"感到震惊。"我原以为深度伪造只会困扰名人，没想到普通记者也会卷入，"她说，"当时我的反应是：开什么玩笑？"更令她不满的是其数字分身给出的建议："那些建议不仅平淡无奇，甚至让文本质量变得更糟。"她举例说，Grammarly生成的"安温"曾建议将简洁句子修改得更冗长复杂，反而"降低了可读性"；另一次则建议用户拓展与原文无关的主题。"这些建议显得非常随意，"安温坦言，"其拙劣程度令我惊讶。"

Superhuman首席执行官希希尔·梅赫罗特拉周三另在领英发文解释停用"专家审阅"的决定："过去一周我们收到专家的合理批评，他们担心该工具歪曲了其观点。这类监督能改进我们的产品，我们对此高度重视。"针对安温的诉讼，Superhuman未立即置评。

英文来源：

Superhuman, the tech company behind the writing software Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit over an AI tool that presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics—none of whom consented to have their names appear within the product.
Julia Angwin, an award-winning investigative journalist who founded The Markup, a nonprofit news organization that covers the impact of technology on society, is the only named plaintiff in the suit, which does not call for a specific amount in damages but argues that damages across the plaintiff class are in excess of $5 million. She was among the many individuals, alongside Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, offered up via Grammarly’s “Expert Review” tool as a kind of virtual editor for users.
The federal suit, filed Wednesday afternoon in the Southern District of New York, states that Angwin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, “challenges Grammarly’s misappropriation of the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to earn profits for Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman.”
The complaint comes as Superhuman has already decided to discontinue the feature amid significant public backlash. “After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review as we reimagine the feature to make it more useful for users, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented—or not represented at all,” said Ailian Gan, Superhuman’s director for product management, in a statement to WIRED shortly before the claim was filed. “We built the agent to help users tap into the insights of thought leaders and experts and to give experts new ways to share their knowledge and reach new audiences. Based on the feedback we’ve received, we clearly missed the mark. We are sorry and will do things differently going forward.”
As WIRED reported earlier this month, Superhuman last year added a suite of AI-powered widgets to the platform, including one that purported to have a veteran writer (living or dead) weigh in with a critique of the user’s text. While a disclaimer clarified that none of the people cited had endorsed or directly participated in the development of this tool, which leveraged an underlying large language model, various writers, including WIRED journalists, expressed frustration over Grammarly invoking their likenesses and apparently regurgitating their life’s work with these AI agents.
Angwin’s attorney Peter Romer-Friedman says that longstanding laws in New York and California, where Superhuman is based, clearly prohibit the commercial use of a person’s name and likeness without their permission. “Legally, we think it's a pretty straightforward case,” he tells WIRED. “More broadly, one of the reasons why we're filing this case is, you know, we can see what's happening in our society: that lots of professionals who spend years, or in Julia's case, decades, honing a skill or a trade, then see that their name or their skills are being appropriated by others without their consent.”
As a New York Times opinion writer, Angwin has written extensively about how Silicon Valley giants have eroded privacy in the 21st century.
“Contrary to the apparent belief of some tech companies, it is unlawful to appropriate peoples’ names and identities for commercial purposes, whether those people are famous or not,” the lawsuit states. “Through this action, Ms. Angwin seeks to stop Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman, from trading on her name and those of hundreds of other journalists, authors, editors, and even lawyers, and to stop Grammarly from attributing words to them that they never uttered and advice that they never gave.”
Angwin tells WIRED that when she learned of Grammarly’s use of her name and reputation from the tech newsletter Platformer, she was surprised to have been cloned, so to speak. “You know, deepfakes are something I always think celebrities are getting caught up in, not regular journalists,” she says. “I was just like, are you kidding me?”
Angwin took further offense at the advice that her digital doppelgänger was dispensing. “It wasn't even just anodyne,” she says. “It was actually kind of actively making it worse.” In one example, Angwin says, Grammarly’s version of her suggested that a simple sentence be revised to be longer and more complex in a way that “actually made it harder to understand.” In another case, it advised the user to expand on a theme that was not actually pertinent to the text.
“It felt very scattershot to me,” Angwin says. “I was surprised at how bad it was.”
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra separately posted about the decision to discontinue “expert review” on LinkedIn on Wednesday. “Over the past week, we received valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices,” Mehrotra wrote. “This kind of scrutiny improves our products, and we take it seriously.”
Superhuman did not immediately comment on Angwin’s lawsuit.