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.
Benjamin Congdon's blog post discusses the increasing prevalence of low-quality, AI-generated content ("AI slop") online and the resulting erosion of trust in written material. He argues that this flood of generated text makes it harder to find genuinely human-created content and fosters a climate of suspicion, where even authentic writing is questioned. Congdon proposes "writing back" as a solution – a conscious effort to create and share thoughtful, personal, and demonstrably human writing that resists the homogenizing tide of AI-generated text. He suggests focusing on embodied experience, nuanced perspectives, and complex emotional responses, emphasizing qualities that are difficult for current AI models to replicate, ultimately reclaiming the value and authenticity of human expression in the digital space.
Hacker News users discuss the increasing prevalence of AI-generated content and the resulting erosion of trust online. Several commenters echo the author's sentiment about the blandness and lack of originality in AI-produced text, describing it as "soulless" and lacking a genuine perspective. Some express concern over the potential for AI to further homogenize online content, creating a feedback loop where AI trains on AI-generated text, leading to a decline in quality and diversity. Others debate the practicality of detecting AI-generated content and the potential for false positives. The idea of "writing back," or actively creating original, human-generated content, is presented as a form of resistance against this trend. A few commenters also touch upon the ethical implications of using AI for content creation, particularly regarding plagiarism and the potential displacement of human writers.
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.