- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Not using grammarly also works.
I have never touched it in years. Don’t need it if you put slightly more effort into writing.
Chatgpt was banned in Italy because they didn’t allow the opt-out. Wonder what happens if someone flags this to some European agency…
But ChatGPT offers an opt-out iirc, at the price of loosing the chat history feature.
Yes but the opt-out was added only after they got banned
- CaptObvious ( @CaptObvious@literature.cafe ) 8•1 year ago
It still isn’t clear why anyone uses a product developed by non-native speakers to check their writing. For anyone who knows grammar, Grammarly sometimes makes… interesting… suggestions.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 5•1 year ago
Email spam usually has heavily flawed English.
I’ve heard that this is intentional. It would be a waste of the spammer’s time to be contacted by people who are smart enough to not be fooled. Those smart people won’t bother contacting the spammer and wasting the spammer’s time if they see grammatical errors in a message that purports to be from a reputable organization, so the spammer throws in some errors to make the smart people filter themselves out. Or so the theory goes.
- CaptObvious ( @CaptObvious@literature.cafe ) 2•1 year ago
I’ve seen this filtering hypothesis, and it seems plausible. OTOH, it also gives James Veitch some fantastic material for his comedy routine.
- CaptObvious ( @CaptObvious@literature.cafe ) 2•1 year ago
Certain uni composition students had better learn to write flawless English if they expect to earn their desired grade in my courses.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
- CaptObvious ( @CaptObvious@literature.cafe ) 1•1 year ago
Maybe customer support should take a stronger stance on understanding and being understood using standard dialect. At least the CSRs that I usually seem to talk with could use a good basic communication course.
Students will use what they learn from me more than you think if they want a degree. If they don’t want one… well, we have several excellent nearby trade schools where they can learn a skill that won’t require formal standard English and will make them a whole lot more money in the long run (I’m honestly saying this respectfully).
- jackpot ( @jackpot@lemmy.ml ) 2•1 year ago
is langaugetool foss? it’s an alternative
