My dude. I have worked with quite a few really smart engineers whose grasp on the English language was imperfect, though quite capable of communicating most points well enough. I would prefer it if I could take a little less time in my code reviews on copy editing, doing things like fixing plurality disagreements and false cognates.
Even if Grammarly was forwarding its data to humans for manual correction, they still wouldn't have the whole context or industry-specific knowledge the person on the receiving end has. And even GPT3 isn't at this level.
It's the classic case of removing all of the apparent errors which then results in the downstream system underestimating the actual quantity of errors in the source and thus not being vigilant for more critical errors. Sure, it makes people look better to their colleagues, but what happens when they need to communicate in person, or in cases like mistaken context for double negative? The receiver will be so impressed with the level of communication they receive that they won't expect basic errors might be made.
The question is irrelevant because OP's not about grammar accuracy or comprehensibility but about domain expertise. Grammarly has no idea what you're talking about, only how. It tries to get around this with the web-scraper activity mentioned elsewhere in comments but obviously that's a bad way to do it for many reasons.
> An algorithm is isn't going to be able to clear up miscommunication more accurately than the person who receives the message.
The whole point isn’t accuracy. Grammarly improves the clarity and accuracy of the message so another person doesn’t have to. The recipient can focus on the message, not applying their superior ability to clear up miscommunications.
So, I tend to agree with you. Whether or not this person has tested Grammarly is somewhat irrelevant because they clearly don’t understand why it exists.
Yeah, I'm looking at this and perhaps it's useful to distinguish absolutely useless from of limited use.
My guess is -- the improvement one might get from using Grammarly might be equivalent to "a faster version of, let me read a BUNCH of examples of similar writings to spark an idea of a better way to say a thing?"
In other words, it feels like the thing that Grammarly might be useful for probably lean "syntactical" over "meaningful?" Something like that.
Miscommunication destroys productivity and in the worst cases ruins end products by corrupting the development cycle.
Ultimately an organizational problem but I gotta say it gets very peeving to write 5 different solutions to the same ask because the other person is careless with their words.
Odd, I thought I responded elsewhere with this point -- but yes, I'd refine my point by saying Grammarly is probably a bad idea for internal communication, but perhaps fine where writing is the product.
