内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/grammarly-is-offering-expert-ai-reviews-from-your-favorite-authors-dead-or-alive/

内容总结：

知名写作辅助工具Grammarly近期推出名为"专家审阅"的AI新功能，引发学术界强烈质疑。该功能声称能模拟包括斯蒂芬·金、尼尔·泰森等在世名人，以及已故学者卡尔·萨甘、威廉·津瑟等数百位专家的审稿意见，但其公司Superhuman在声明中承认，所列专家实际并未参与产品开发或给予授权。

据《连线》杂志调查，该功能通过抓取目标专家的著作训练AI模型，以生成风格模仿式的修改建议。伯明翰大学科学史副教授瓦妮莎·赫吉在社交媒体谴责此举是"利用生者与逝者的声誉进行交易"，耶鲁大学博士后研究员奥班更指出这反映了"人文学科正在遭遇的系统性贬损——仿佛思想者本身可以被简化为算法数据"。

尽管Grammarly宣称该功能旨在"引导用户接触权威学术观点"，但实际测试显示，其抄袭检测系统连《辛普森一家》的经典台词都未能识别。教育界担忧，这种虚拟专家反馈机制可能模糊学术诚信边界，让学生误以为经过AI"专家"审阅即符合学术规范。

目前该技术涉及的著作权法律问题仍处灰色地带，多起相关诉讼正在进行中。随着AI写作工具日益渗透教育领域，如何在技术创新与学术伦理间取得平衡，已成为亟待解决的现实课题。

中文翻译：

你是否怀念当老师得意门生的时光？是否仍渴望收到大学教授的评语？是否梦想有个权威的声音逐字逐句为你批改作业？好消息来了：某软件公司研发出一种模拟批评的技术，不仅能模仿当红作家与知名学者的口吻，连逝世数十年的名家也能"复活"点评——而且这家公司显然未经任何人授权就实现了这一切。

曾专攻语法拼写检查的写作工具Grammarly，近年来新增了大量生成式AI功能。十月，首席执行官希希尔·梅赫罗特拉宣布公司将整体更名为Superhuman，以体现全新AI产品矩阵的升级，不过其AI写作"助手"仍保留Grammarly之名。"当技术无处不在时，人们往往会习以为常，"梅赫罗特拉在新闻稿中写道，"而这通常意味着非凡的变革正在悄然发生。"

升级后的Grammarly平台如今为各种想象得到的需求——甚至是你从未想过的需求——提供AI解决方案。其功能包括：起草时可随时提问的AI聊天机器人、调整文风的"改写器"、按选定语气优化的"人性化润色"、预测课业得分的AI评分器，甚至能标记并修改大语言模型常用套话的工具（没错，你全程都在使用AI，但又不希望文字显露AI痕迹）。

然而最令人不安的，或许是新增的"专家审阅"功能。与普通AI的泛泛而谈不同，该功能会列出真实学者与作家的名单供用户选择。需要明确的是：这些专家并未参与此过程。免责声明明确写道："本产品提及的专家仅用于信息参考，不表明其与Grammarly存在关联或获得其认可。"

据产品支持页面显示，用户可向斯蒂芬·金、尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森等在世名家（两位均未回应置评请求）的虚拟版本寻求建议，也能获得已故编辑威廉·津瑟、天文学家卡尔·萨根等逝者的"指导"。尽管内容采集的合法性仍存争议且涉及大量版权诉讼，这些AI代理 presumably 通过分析模仿对象的作品集进行训练。

Superhuman高级传播经理詹·达金解释道："专家审阅代理会分析用户正在撰写的文本——无论是营销简报还是生物多样性课题——通过底层大语言模型调取专家著作内容来协助用户完善作品。建议的专家人选取决于文本主题，该功能不声称获得专家认可或直接参与，而是提供受专家著作启发的建议，引导用户接触权威观点以便深入研习。"

像金这样的作家或许认为AI浪潮不可阻挡，津瑟1976年的经典写作指南《写作法宝》也难逃科技巨头的"秃鹫式"利用，但无数仍想保护作品不被算法吞噬的杰出学者又当如何？伯明翰大学科学医学史副教授瓦妮莎·赫吉最近在领英揭露了该功能的骇人案例，指责Superhuman基于"爬取生者与逝者作品"创建小型语言模型，并利用"他们的名望声誉"牟利。她发布的截图显示，系统提供基于今年一月去世的中世纪文艺复兴史学家戴维·阿布拉菲亚训练的AI分析。"简直无耻。"赫吉写道。

《连线》杂志独立测试专家审阅功能时，复现了阿布拉菲亚AI的修改建议，以及基于在世认知科学家史蒂芬·平克、加里·马库斯训练的模型反馈（二者均未回应评论请求）。软件处理测试文本时标注其灵感来源包括：《风格的要素》作者小威廉·斯特伦克、社会学家皮埃尔·布迪厄、小说《飘》作者玛格丽特·米切尔，以及2020年3月刚去世的作家兼教授弗吉尼亚·塔夫特。塔夫特的AI代理建议道："用生动多变的句式取代重复表达。"

耶鲁大学历史学博士后研究员C·E·奥宾在Bluesky转发了赫吉的贴文，她告诉《连线》："Grammarly的'专家'系统似乎印证了人文学界对AI的深度不信任——这项技术总在以根本违背伦理的方式被滥用。"

"这根本不是专家审阅，因为根本没有'专家'参与其中，"奥宾指出，"当人文学科正遭受全方位冲击时，如此利用学术成果堪称侮辱——仿佛那些真正思考、创造知识的学者能被简化为作品本身，甚至完全从等式中抹去。"她认为这种人格抹除本身已足够"恶劣"，更不必说"如此冷酷地'复活'逝者"的伦理问题。

除却伦理争议，这些泛滥的AI工具是否真正有效也值得商榷。例如Grammarly的查重功能未能识别《辛普森一家》的经典片段：巴特即兴编造地理报告时总结道："总之，利比亚是个充满反差的国家。"（不过系统确实警告"充满反差的国家"属于AI高频用语。）

过去几年，教师们疲于应对海量AI生成论文，难以让学生戒除这种自欺欺人的捷径。早在"专家"功能出现前，依赖Grammarly检查论文的用户就常因AI检测服务标记而被指控作弊。让用户误以为能在提交前获得顶尖思想家评估，可能强化他们"只是二次检查，并未违反学术规范"的错觉。

但至少学生们能享受虚拟导师批改作业的乐趣——这或许会逐渐消解真实教师的存在，最终彻底取代教职员工。答案应该很快就能揭晓！

英文来源：

Do you have fond memories of being a teacher’s pet? Wish you could still get notes from your favorite college professor? Dream about some implacable voice of authority correcting your every word choice and punctuation mark? Well, great news: A certain software company has engineered a way to simulate criticism not just from bestselling authors and famous academics of our time, but also many who died decades ago—and the company evidently didn’t need permission from anybody to do it.
Once relied upon only to proofread for correct grammar and spelling, the writing tool Grammarly has added a host of generative AI features over the past several years. In October, CEO Shishir Mehrotra announced that the overall company was rebranding as Superhuman to reflect a new suite of AI-powered products. However, the AI writing “partner” remains called Grammarly. “When technology works everywhere, it starts to feel ordinary,” Mehrotra wrote in his press release. “And that usually means something extraordinary is happening under the hood.”
The expanded Grammarly platform now offers an AI solution for every imaginable need—and some you’ve probably never had. There’s an AI chatbot that will answer specific questions as you compose a draft, a “paraphraser” feature that suggests changes in style, a “humanizer” that revises according to a selected voice, an AI grader that predicts how your document would score as college coursework, and even tools for flagging and tweaking phrases commonly produced by large language models. (Sure, you’re using AI to do everything here, but you don’t want it to sound like that.)
Perhaps most insidiously, however, Grammarly now has an “expert review” option that, instead of producing what looks like a generic critique from a nameless LLM, lists a number of real academics and authors available to weigh in on your text. To be clear: Those people have nothing to do with this process. As a disclaimer clarifies: “References to experts in this product are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities.”
As advertised on a support page, Grammarly users can solicit tips from virtual versions of living writers and scholars such as Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson (neither of whom responded to a request for comment) as well as the deceased, like the editor William Zinsser and astronomer Carl Sagan. Presumably, these different AI agents are trained on the oeuvres of the people they are meant to imitate, though the legality of this content-harvesting remains murky at best, and the subject of many, many copyright lawsuits.
“Our Expert Review agent examines the writing a user is working on, whether it's a marketing brief or a student project on biodiversity, and leverages our underlying LLM to surface expert content that can help the document's author shape their work,” says Jen Dakin, senior communications manager at Superhuman. “The suggested experts depend on the substance of the writing being evaluated. 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.”
Someone like King may see the advance of AI as unstoppable, and there may be nobody left to defend Zinsser’s 1976 handbook On Writing Well from the big tech vultures, but what of the countless other luminaries who still want to keep their material from being compressed into an algorithm? Vanessa Heggie, an associate professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Birmingham, recently took to LinkedIn to share an especially grim example of how the feature works, accusing Superhuman of “creating little LLMs” based on the “scraped work” of the living and dead alike, trading on “their names and reputations.” The screenshot she posted showed the availability of analysis from an AI agent modeled on David Abulafia, an English historian of the medieval and Renaissance periods who died in January. “Obscene,” Heggie wrote.
An independent review of the Expert Review tool by WIRED reproduced the recommendations for feedback from the Abulafia bot, as well as from models based on the living cognitive scientists Steven Pinker and Gary Marcus. (Neither returned a request for comment.) As the software processed the sample text, it noted that it was taking “inspiration” from Elements of Style author William Strunk Jr. and the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu while applying “ideas” from Gone With the Wind author Margaret Mitchell and using “concepts” from writer and professor Virginia Tufte—all of whom are dead, with Tufte dying most recently, in March 2020. The guidance from her AI agent read: “Replace repetition with vivid, varied sentence patterns.”
C.E. Aubin, a historian and postdoctoral fellow at Yale University who shared Heggie’s LinkedIn post on Bluesky, tells WIRED that Grammarly’s “expert” system “seems to validate the profound mistrust so many scholars in the humanities have for AI and its seemingly constant use in fundamentally unethical ways.”
“These are not expert reviews, because there are no ‘experts’ involved in producing them,” Aubin says. “And it's pretty insulting to see scholarship used this way when the academic humanities are currently under attack from every possible angle—as though the actual people who do the thinking and produce the scholarship are reducible to their work itself and can be removed entirely from the equation.” She says this elimination of personhood is “awful” enough on its own, apart from “the issue of ‘reanimating’ the dead so cynically.”
Beyond the dubious ethics, there’s the question of whether these proliferating AI widgets are even effective or helpful. Grammarly’s plagiarism detector, for instance, didn’t catch a direct quotation I used from a scene in The Simpsons where Bart improvises a geography presentation he hasn’t prepared for, leading to an empty summation: “In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts.” (Grammarly did warn, however, that “a land of contrasts” is a sequence of words often generated by LLMs.)
Over the past several years, teachers and professors have struggled through a deluge of AI-written essays, finding it difficult to wean their pupils off of this self-defeating shortcut. And even before Grammarly had its “experts,” those who relied on it to proofread their papers were occasionally accused of cheating after the material was flagged by AI detection services. Giving these users the impression that they can have their work evaluated by leading thinkers before they turn it in may contribute to their sense that they are only double-checking their text, not violating any academic code of conduct.
But at least students can enjoy having their homework assessed by illusory mentors instead of their actual instructors, which may or may not be a slippery slope toward eliminating school faculty altogether. Shouldn’t take long to find out!