Source: https://front-end.social/@fox/110846484782705013

Text in the screenshot from Grammarly says:

We develop data sets to train our algorithms so that we can improve the services we provide to customers like you. We have devoted significant time and resources to developing methods to ensure that these data sets are anonymized and de-identified.

To develop these data sets, we sample snippets of text at random, disassociate them from a user’s account, and then use a variety of different methods to strip the text of identifying information (such as identifiers, contact details, addresses, etc.). Only then do we use the snippets to train our algorithms-and the original text is deleted. In other words, we don’t store any text in a manner that can be associated with your account or used to identify you or anyone else.

We currently offer a feature that permits customers to opt out of this use for Grammarly Business teams of 500 users or more. Please let me know if you might be interested in a license of this size, and I’II forward your request to the corresponding team.

  • fcSolar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Per their website premium includes “Unlimited sentence paraphrasing powered by A.I.” so I’m not sure they’re an appropriate alternative to avoid the “AI” bullshit.

    • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can’t avoid the AI “bullshit”. It’s like saying you want to avoid this portable phone craze. It’s a tool.

      • fcSolar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can avoid it like I’ve avoided cryptocurrency and NFTs. And it may be a “tool,” but it’s one built on the theft from and unpaid labor of tens of thousands of independent creators, and is nigh wholly controlled by corporate interests bent on eliminating those same independent creators whose data they stole to make their “tools.” It should not exist. Not until it can be made in an ethical manner without harming the creatives necessary to make it.

        • Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The whole system is built on exploitation. I don’t see you boycotting luxury clothes, diamond, rare metal that are made by exploiting someone from a third world country to inhuman levels. Ah, yes. It could affect people you know, It’s immoral now. Am tired of this hypocrisy.