Some people will argue that Grammarly still has a better suggestion system, but models have become increasingly good at writing. I think this product and its revenue model will become obsolete pretty soon.
That's not the impression I have. HN has almost daily articles bemoaning the use of AI to enhance or pad-out human-to-human communication and the comments almost universally agree that the output is bad, using AI to communicate is rude, and they'd rather read the human-written prompt than the AI-"enhanced" version.
I'm not aware of any model that has solved the AI writing problem. Fable 5.1 and Opus 5.5 improve on Fable 5 and Opus 5, but neither are good. They all seem to overuse jargon, misuse literary devices and write ill-fitting metaphor. They all produce prose that is dense and hard to read, but sparse on actual information. Even non-techy people can identify AI writing.
For her its rarely the specific tells ("not-x-but-y" etc) but rather its bad metaphors and analogies that get her.
I feel a tinge when I see an AI written email that is longer than it needs to be/boring to read but I still need to engage whatever it was they were emailing about anyways.
These spaces are filled with people barely technically literate enough to post and AI is still viewed very negatively
It was a good tool, that worked, paid for it for a couple of months and then they decided to go with AI and using my writing for training.
That is a very bad shortening for "pre-laymen-take-of-AI". Let us try to keep language clean at least here.
If the product in question replaces a tutor, it is AI ("simulation of intelligence"). We cannot restrict the term "AI" to "giving a broader appearance of intelligence with less trust in the results". Either this is still the "AI era" (post cybernetics, post Dartmouth), or we are not there yet.
Models are not good at writing. Like, they are just not producing good writings. They produce differently bad writing.