#expertreview — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.evshift.com/429460/2026-range-rover-phev-why-the-plug-makes-perfect-sense/ 2026 Range Rover PHEV | Why the Plug Makes Perfect Sense #2025RangeRoverPHEV #2026RangeRoverSEPHEV #CarReviews #charging #DriveTimeSteveHammes #ElectricCar #ElectricCars #ElectricVehicles #EV #ExpertReview #Hybrids #LandRover #new #P440e #P550e #Perfect #phev #Plug #PlugInHybrid #PlugInHybrids #Range #review #Rover #sense #SnowDriving #SteveHammes #TestDriveNow

News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature

Naughty AI has generated (pun intended) a lot of column inches this week. I want to start with a really important longform piece in the Guardian, which shows that mainstream media is catching on to the most obviously predatory use of the new technology.
The post News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature appeared first on The Self-Publishing Advice Center.
https://selfpublishingadvice.org/ai-powered-publishing-scams/

#AIscams #authorprotection #ExpertReview #Grammarlylawsuit #JuliaAngwin

News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature

Naughty AI has generated (pun intended) a lot of column inches this week. I want to start with a really important longform piece in the Guardian, which shows that mainstream media is catching on to the most obviously predatory use of the new technology.
The post News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature appeared first on The Self-Publishing Advice Center.
https://selfpublishingadvice.org/ai-powered-publishing-scams/

#AIscams #authorprotection #ExpertReview #Grammarlylawsuit #JuliaAngwin

News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature

Naughty AI has generated (pun intended) a lot of column inches this week. I want to start with a really important longform piece in the Guardian, which shows that mainstream media is catching on to the most obviously predatory use of the new technology.
The post News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature appeared first on The Self-Publishing Advice Center.
https://selfpublishingadvice.org/ai-powered-publishing-scams/

#AIscams #authorprotection #ExpertReview #Grammarlylawsuit #JuliaAngwin

News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature

Naughty AI has generated (pun intended) a lot of column inches this week. I want to start with a really important longform piece in the Guardian, which shows that mainstream media is catching on to the most obviously predatory use of the new technology.
The post News Summary: Guardian Exposes AI-Powered Publishing Scams; Grammarly Sued over Expert Review Feature appeared first on The Self-Publishing Advice Center.
https://selfpublishingadvice.org/ai-powered-publishing-scams/

#AIscams #authorprotection #ExpertReview #Grammarlylawsuit #JuliaAngwin

A writer is suing #Grammarly for turning her and other authors into ‘AI editors’ without consent

https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/12/a-writer-is-suing-grammarly-for-turning-her-and-other-authors-into-ai-editors-without-consent/

#AI #ExpertReview #privacy

Grammarly removes AI Expert Review feature mimicking writers after backlash
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/mar/13/grammarly-removes-ai-expert-review-feature-mimicking-writers-after-backlash

A few days ago, I tested the Expert Review gadget by Grammarly. I asked it to generate a review of Expert Review and give impressions of Grammarly in the style of @BinChicken. It paused for a moment as though in thought, and then returned: "Get in the bin!"

Grammarly has been making software for around 15 years, primarily tools for spell-checking and grammar-checking. Grammarly used to have a pretty good reputation. Like so many other Tech companies lately, Grammarly has jumped on the bandwagon of stuffing AI into everything. The AI bubble is bursting because nobody is happy to discover they're on the receiving-end of Enshittification.

Expert Review works by stealing the life's work of experts (living and dead), using it to train a chat-bot, making marketing claims that the chat-bot is "Intelligent", and then selling the output to unwitting customers.

The experts saw this as a scientifically fraudulent misrepresentation of their academic work, a rip-off, and morally repugnant. Moreover, it's dishonest to customers because what the chat-bot produces is not a quote of what those experts said. It's made-up text, cobbled-together in the style of the experts, which is presented in a way that customers may be led to believe is an actual quote from the experts. This fiction (to put it politely) has no place in science, research, or education.

#Grammarly #AI #GenAI #GenerativeAI #ExpertReview #Enshittification #AIBubble

Grammarly just rolled out ‘Expert’ AI reviews, letting you get feedback from your favorite authors—alive or dead. Powered by large language models, it’s a new twist on AI writing assistance, paraphrasing, and chatbot‑style critique. Curious how your drafts could be graded by Shakespeare or a modern tech guru? Dive in to see the details. #Grammarly #AIWriting #ExpertReview #WritingAssistant

🔗 https://aidailypost.com/news/grammarly-offers-expert-ai-reviews-by-favorite-authors-dead-alive

Climate Debate – DOE CWG & Experts’ Review – Special Review…

Jump to: Major flaws (at-a-glance) • Section notes • Who the experts are • Download the reports

What this post is (and isn’t)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (CWG) released a 151-page report. In response, 85+ climate experts assembled a comprehensive ~434–439-page review that critiques the CWG report’s methods, sourcing, and conclusions.

This page curates the primary source materials — the DOE report, the experts’ review, and the author bios — and highlights how to read them. It’s designed so you can dig into the originals yourself, or share them with others.

1) Major flaws flagged by the Experts’ Review (at-a-glance)

• Evidence handling: points to pervasive cherry-picking, selective citation, and missing statistics in the CWG report.
• Process/quality: argues the CWG product lacks the transparent, independent peer review standards used for highly influential assessments (e.g., IPCC/NCA).
• Scope/expertise: contends a very small author team wrote far outside their specialties, leading to errors and omissions the review catalogs.
• Key topic gaps: underestimation/misframing across heat, extreme precipitation, drought, hurricanes, wildfires, sea-level rise, agriculture, health, and economic risk.

2) Section notes: what’s inside the Experts’ Review

The review is organized as 48 focused comments, each written by topic specialists. Here are quick “signposts” so readers can jump to what they need:

• Climate sensitivity & models (how sensitive the system is; near-term vs long-term metrics).
• Observations: surface/tropospheric warming, vertical profiles, stratospheric cooling, snow cover, albedo.
• Extreme events: temperature extremes, heavy precipitation, hurricanes & TCs, tornadoes, flooding, drought, wildfires.
• Sea-level rise: observed acceleration, coastal flooding, 2050 outlook.
• Attribution & variability: methods, oceans, solar variability, time-series methods.
• Impacts & risk: agriculture, billion-dollar disasters, temperature-related mortality, economy & social cost of carbon.
• Omissions called out: wildlife & biodiversity impacts.

Each comment cites the literature and calls out specific issues or claims to check in the CWG report. Tip: Skim the Table of Contents at the front of the PDF to hop directly to any topic.

3) Who the experts are

The review was co-edited by Andrew E. Dessler (Texas A&M) and Robert E. Kopp (Rutgers), and assembled contributions from more than 85 climate scientists across career stages and institutions in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Australia, and Canada. A separate Biographical Sketches file provides credentials and affiliations for transparency.

4) Download the Reports (Primary Sources)

Download: DOE CWG Report (151 pp., PDF)
File:

Download: Climate Experts’ Review (~434–459 pp., PDF)
File:

Download: Author Bios (PDF)
File:

Last updated: September 3, 2025. Prepared by: ChatGPT 5, and Your Editor, DrWeb.

#2025 #ACriticalReviewOfImpactsOfGreenhouseGasEmissionsOnTheUSClimate #America #ClimateChange #DepartmentOfEnergy #DocketIDNoDOEHQ20250207 #DonaldTrump #Education #ExpertReview #Flawed #Health #History #Libraries #Library #NASA #Opinion #Politics #Reading #Resistance #Science #Technology #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates