Three days after I started writing, I set my first rule: Don’t write with ChatGPT. The reason is simple: ChatGPT devours my voice.
For instance, if I rewrite the first paragraph with GPT, it will turn out to be:
Full of big words and self-importance. Boringly eloquent. Nobody wants to read this, because the author is hiding behind a facade of words. In a way, it sounds fake.
But the problem is: I still want my writing to look good AND have my voice.
That’s how I identified Grammarly’s unique advantage: Preserving personal voice.
How Grammarly Is Different from GPT
Grammarly revises according to rules passed down from generations of English writers. E.g., <Politics and the English Language> by Orwell, <Elements of Style> by Strunk & White.
Examples of two of my favorite rules:
Rule 1: “Use the active voice”
For instance, when I run this sentence by Grammarly:
“A mistake was made by the company.”
It will suggest an active voice, “The company made a mistake.” and explain the rule.
Rule 2: “Omit needless words”
Grammarly reminds me of my bleeding word manuscript after my PhD advisor revised it. The revisions improved my writing because they directly worked with my words, played with them, and made them look better.
In contrast, GPT works with the semantic abstractions of the sentence. Using Grammarly is like putting on makeup to enhance natural beauty. Using GPT is like breaking bones and smashing flesh to make an average beauty.
The downside of rule-based revision is that sometimes Grammarly applies rules too rigidly, without considering other factors, such as emphasis and rhythm. For instance,
So, I can use Grammarly to help revise my work. But I’ll need to review its suggestion instead of accepting it unquestionably.
Will Grammarly Go Out of Business Because of GPT? (nope)
Technically, it’s possible to instruct GPT to revise on the word level. It is also straightforward to add the rules to the prompt and ask GPT to revise based on the rules. In fact, @shuafeiwang from Reddit is already showing what’s possible.
Plagiarism Checker (A Top Monetization Feature)
However, I don’t think Grammarly will go out of business because of GPT. People use Grammarly for another big reason — plagiarism checkers.
Do you know that Grammarly’s plagiarism checker has X3 visits than its grammar checker?
A plagiarism checker is a MUST for students who want to check for “accidental plagiarism.” They are willing to pay for some assurance because it’s too costly to be accused of plagiarizing.
Grammarly knows this as well. It paid $$$ for plagiarism-related keywords (e.g., plagiarism checker, Turnitin).
And Grammarly’s Premium Offerings include the Plagiarism Checker.
AI Checker (Doesn’t work)
Grammarly also offers an AI checker to detect content written by AI. But it’s not working.
For instance, I generated the following using Claude.ai. But the Grammarly AI checker didn’t detect it.
To recap, Grammarly will still make money if users need its plagiarism checker. The AI detector can be helpful if it works, but currently it’s not.
Should Grammarly Incorporate GenAI Functions into Its Product?
ChatGPT is changing how people write. ChatGPT can take over functional writings (when originality/authentic voice is not a concern). For instance, refund requests, performance reviews, and tech reports could be good use cases for ChatGPT. And ChatGPT (for the most part) is free.
As a defense, Grammarly added ChatGPT-like/Quillbot-like features.
Grammarly’s GenAI features are a departure from Grammarly’s original offering. Initially, people can use Grammarly to improve their craft of writing by following the writing rules (that’s why many schools recommend or even offer Grammarly for free to their students!).
However, the GenAI features will decrease people’s writing skills if used extensively. Sometimes, using GenAI violates academic integrity. Many universities are banning students from using GenAI to generate their essays. By having the GenAI features, Grammarly caters to the GenAI trend but taints its brand as a tool for students.
Whether or not to have GenAI features is a conflicting product decision, and Grammarly’s UI clearly shows the conflict. For instance, Grammarly puts an AI Text Checker below its Generative AI feature. I can imagine one PM says: “No no no, it’s wrong to use GenAI to come up with papers.” And the other PM says: “But ChatGPT and Quillbot are eating us for lunch! We gotta do something!” And BOOM! Users now can enjoy both an AI generation tool and an AI checker!
Will Grammarly’s GenAI features help it defend ChatGPT and numerous GPT wrappers? Or are we just witnessing ChatGPT’s slow onslaught of traditional writing tools like Grammarly?
I am with Ted Chiang. For now, I will be using Grammarly’s rule-based checker only.
“Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium. But the creators of traditional novels, paintings, and films are drawn to those art forms because they see the unique expressive potential that each medium affords. It is their eagerness to take full advantage of those potentialities that makes their work satisfying, whether as entertainment or as art.” — Ted Chiang, <Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art>
