Dbushell's blog post "Et Tu, Grammarly?" criticizes Grammarly's tone detector for flagging neutral phrasing as overly negative or uncertain. He provides examples where simple, straightforward sentences are deemed problematic, arguing that the tool pushes users towards an excessively positive and verbose style, ultimately hindering clear communication. This, he suggests, reflects a broader trend of AI writing tools prioritizing a specific, and potentially undesirable, writing style over actual clarity and conciseness. He worries this reinforces corporate jargon and ultimately diminishes the quality of writing.
In a poignant reflection titled "Et Tu, Grammarly?", published on March 29, 2025, by Dave Bushell on his personal blog, dbushell.com, the author meticulously dissects the perceived decline in the efficacy of the popular writing assistance tool, Grammarly. He initiates his discourse by harkening back to a bygone era, a time when he lauded Grammarly as an indispensable instrument for refining his prose, a veritable digital amanuensis that elevated the clarity and precision of his written communications.
Mr. Bushell proceeds to articulate a palpable shift in his perception of Grammarly's utility. He posits that the software, once a trusted ally in the pursuit of grammatical impeccability, has, in recent times, exhibited a propensity for offering suggestions that are not only unhelpful but, in some instances, demonstrably detrimental to the intended nuance and stylistic flourish of his writing. He illustrates this perceived degradation with specific examples, highlighting instances where Grammarly's recommendations, if implemented, would have resulted in a simplification or homogenization of his carefully crafted expressions.
The author further elaborates on his growing disillusionment by lamenting the perceived inflexibility of Grammarly's algorithms. He argues that the software appears to prioritize rigid adherence to conventional grammatical precepts, often at the expense of authorial voice and stylistic idiosyncrasies. This, he contends, leads to a flattening of expressive range and a stifling of creativity in the writing process.
Furthermore, Mr. Bushell expresses a distinct apprehension regarding the potential implications of over-reliance on such automated writing tools. He intimates that the ubiquitous adoption of software like Grammarly could inadvertently contribute to a decline in the overall quality and diversity of written communication, leading to a homogenized and predictable literary landscape devoid of individual flair and stylistic innovation. He concludes by expressing a wistful longing for the erstwhile efficacy of Grammarly, juxtaposing his current disappointment with his previous enthusiastic endorsement of the tool. This contrast serves to underscore the perceived magnitude of the software's decline in his estimation, leaving the reader with a sense of shared lament for the potential loss of a valuable writing aid.
Summary of Comments ( 47 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43514308
HN commenters largely agree with the author's criticism of Grammarly's aggressive upselling and intrusive UI. Several users share similar experiences of frustration with the constant prompts to upgrade, even after dismissing them. Some suggest alternative grammar checkers like LanguageTool and ProWritingAid, praising their less intrusive nature and comparable functionality. A few commenters point out that Grammarly's business model necessitates these tactics, while others discuss the potential negative impact on user experience and writing flow. One commenter mentions the irony of Grammarly's own grammatical errors in their marketing materials, further fueling the sentiment against the company's practices. The overall consensus is that Grammarly's usefulness is overshadowed by its annoying and disruptive upselling strategy.
The Hacker News post "Et Tu, Grammarly?" discussing Dbushell's blog post about Grammarly's apparent shift towards AI-driven features and potential decline in core grammar checking functionality, sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments.
Several users shared anecdotal experiences mirroring the author's sentiment. One user lamented the perceived decline in Grammarly's ability to catch basic grammatical errors, contrasting it with the tool's past performance. They specifically mentioned missing simple mistakes, suggesting a shift in focus from fundamental grammar rules. Another commenter echoed this, expressing frustration with Grammarly's increasing tendency to offer stylistic suggestions instead of addressing core grammatical issues. This user found the stylistic suggestions disruptive and ultimately deactivated the tool due to its perceived ineffectiveness in its primary function.
The conversation also touched upon the broader implications of AI integration in writing tools. One commenter cautioned against relying solely on AI for writing and editing, emphasizing the importance of human oversight and the development of strong writing skills. They argued that tools like Grammarly should be used as aids, not replacements for critical thinking and careful editing. Another user suggested that the perceived decline in Grammarly's core functionality might be a deliberate strategy to push users towards the AI-powered features and premium subscriptions, speculating that the free version might be intentionally "dumbed down."
Some users offered alternative solutions and perspectives. One commenter recommended LanguageTool as a potential replacement for Grammarly, praising its open-source nature and perceived superiority in catching grammatical errors. Another user pointed out that while Grammarly might not be perfect, it still offers valuable assistance, particularly for non-native English speakers. This commenter highlighted the importance of acknowledging the tool's limitations and using it judiciously.
Finally, one commenter offered a more technical perspective, suggesting that the shift towards AI might be due to the inherent difficulty in maintaining and improving rule-based grammar checking systems. They speculated that machine learning models, despite their current limitations, might offer a more scalable and adaptable approach to grammar checking in the long run.
In summary, the comments on Hacker News reflect a mixed sentiment towards Grammarly's recent changes. While some users appreciate the new AI features, many express concern over the perceived decline in basic grammar checking capabilities, sparking a broader discussion about the role of AI in writing and the future of grammar-checking tools.