Grammarly caught using AI to simulate dead writers… again
Grammarly has faced backlash for using AI to simulate the writing styles of deceased authors and journalists. Recently, the company was accused of 'necromancy' after users found a feature that allows manuscript reviews by AI versions of real professors, including one who passed away in January. This has sparked outrage among academics and raised concerns about the implications of AI in writing and research.
- ▪Grammarly was previously caught allowing users to edit their work in the style of well-known journalists without permission.
- ▪The company has been accused of using the writing voices of dead authors for its editing services.
- ▪A recent discovery revealed that Grammarly offers manuscript reviews by AI versions of real professors, including deceased individuals.
Boing Boing files mainly under tech. We currently carry 375 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Boing Boing |
| Canonical URL | https://boingboing.net/2026/05/18/grammarly-caught-using-ai-to-simulate-dead-writers-again.html |
| Publication time | Mon, 18 May 2026 19:16:24 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-18T19:44:56.940Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-18T19:44:56.940Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | tbhIwEc2BGD8 |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Grammarly caught using AI to simulate dead writers… again Séamus Bellamy 12:16 pm Mon May 18, 2026 Who is Danny/Shutterstock You may recall that AI writing and editing helper Grammarly admitted to shitting the bed last month when it was caught allowing its users to polish their scribbling in the writing style of well-known journalists, without those journalists' permission. There was more poop earlier this year, when the company was found to be using the writing voice of dead authors to edit and critique its subscribers' work.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Boing Boing.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Boing Boing
