This is getting to the antivirus bundle level of adding pointless features. I want grammarly to... check my grammar. I don't want it to write for me or suggest things.
No sepulcator company gets profitable by shipping just a sepulcator. A sepulcator absolutely must have AI, monthly subscription, cloud services and - up until recently - has to be blockchain-based.
Perhaps you do, but I think this misses the point. For-profit writing is the most successful use case for LLMs today. A significant proportion of all the docs I see at work reek of LLMs. A fair amount of articles you read in the media are written by LLMs. Lawyers use it for legal briefs (sometimes with comical results). Doctors use it for patient notes.
Basically, a significant portion of the population doesn't like writing or isn't good at it and really wants a "get it done" button. I might not love it, but the market is there.
So Grammarly is addressing a very real need. Further, it's really the only way for them to stay relevant, because you're getting AI editing / writing features in Gmail, Docs, Office 365, etc.
> So Grammarly is addressing a very real need. Further, it's really the only way for them to stay relevant, because you're getting AI editing / writing features in Gmail, Docs, Office 365, etc.
They are a feature, not a company, with my apologies to Jobs. To your point, software and tools with native writing functionality can incorporate their own LLM support, as can native apps on mobile and desktop. Anything local will eventually be on device imho as model efficiency improves, or perhaps in browser (if not making API calls).
> Why would I use Grammarly/Superhuman for writing with LLM assistance, when I have an out-of-box alternative that, at worst, is equal?
I think the answer is basically that they have brand recognition and they're trying to ride it. Right now, they have two bad choices: become irrelevant more quickly by having a product that's inferior to built-in LLM tools, or become irrelevant more slowly by having a tool that's comparable (and also works anywhere on the internet, not just on specific websites).
Harper is a nice alternative, but it's still rough around the edges.
For instance, if you have a misspelled word, and the correction options come up, you can't get out of them and return to where you were by using the keyboard. You can hit Escape to close them, but it doesn't restore your place in the text field, so you have to use your mouse to get back where you were.
As a programmer who tries to use the keyboard as much as possible, this (incredibly easy to fix, I'm sure) bug drives me crazy! Almost enough to make me go back to Grammarly.
That seems to me not like a "rough around the edges" thing but "most basic, table-stakes feature". If you cannot resume typing after either cancelling a correction, or doing a correction, I'd say it is very broken and not ready to be marketed as a functioning tool. I mean, it's supposed to help you write, not make it more cumbersome.
The name Superhuman makes a lot more sense for a company with a suite of AI productivity products. The "Grammarly" name was too focused on their original use case of just improving writing.
I know it has a positive connotation with super heroes in US culture but for me it sounds like Übermensch. Especially as it is the direct opposite of "subhuman".
Plus outside of tech bro circles, people either actively hate generative AI or are at least super annoyed by the over-hype of it. Duolingo went all in on AI and got a huge shitstorm.
Branding your company on a current hype that might either burst soon or/and leave lots of people unemployed is maybe not a wise decisions.
Are you a native English speaker? I can't think of a scenario where "superhuman" has negative connotations in American English. When we say someone has superhuman skill, or speed, or strength, it is always a positive thing.
There are instances where the term is used in a positive sense, yes, but those are limited in scope. "Superhuman strength" rather than just "superhuman".
"Superhuman" on its own is a term that has long been tightly associated with a wide variety of horrible things. Eugenics, for example.
Nope. You must be thinking of the terms "Untermensch" (used a lot by Nazis) and "Übermensch" (introduced by Nietzsche, and rarely used by Nazis). "Supermensch" was never used at all.
Growing up in the 90s in Sweden, we definitively were taught that "Übermensch" ("Övermänniska" in Swedish, literally "Above Human") was something the Nazis promoted during their time, together with demoting "Untermensch". Maybe that's wrong, and if so I thank you for the correction, but "Superhuman" does give me similar vibes regardless, not because of the exact wording, but because of the ideas/concepts.
HN can be so funny sometimes. An actual German says "hey maybe this specific word shouldn't be used", and a random follows it up with "Nope, you're wrong." lmao
Because Ubermensch comes from Nietzche a century before the Nazis, as said, and had also a big influence on anarchists. No-one suggested that "Superhuman" shouldn't be used, either. A some point people need to put things in context and not "get the creeps" over any little things. I am sure that Germans don't even notice all those "Volkswagen" around them...
Why would Germans be an authority on what words should or shouldn't be used in English?
This is sort of a reverse version of the very common trend of American political correctness / sensitivity language being exported around the world. Our ancestors committed heinous crimes, therefore we get to tell you how to speak, even though you had nothing to do with it.
A German person just said that it gives them nazi viber, nothing about English words that should be used.
Person above argues that the words are different therefore such connection can't be made which is just... wrong because they reply in a thread where someone literally said they made that connection.
In short, we're explicitly talking about what Europeans see (me too, I'm not German), not what Americans should do.
The comment I'm replying to says, verbatim, "hey maybe this specific word shouldn't be used" (as a paraphrase of that commenter's understanding of the argument being made by the German). That is what I'm responding to.
If someone says a particular word or phrase is problematic for them, no one can tell them they're wrong. You cannot dictate how other people respond to language, and it's really weird to see people trying to do that.
You cannot expect other countries to stop using normal words because they remind you of the bad things your country did.
Shame for what Germany did during the Nazi regime is something for Germans to bear, not Americans. We are not at fault for that, and we have no obligation to change our own culture to accommodate your guilt.
Responding to you and fullshark, I'm not criticizing, only observing. Just as there is some evolutionary pressure causing carcinization, it's interesting to consider what pressure pushes things in the directions of email and LLMs.
I don't know what it is, but would love to hear others' ideas.
I think "email" is a bit of a overly specific term, but if we take a small step back, communicating with other humans is usually the most important part of any piece of software.
I have a feeling these things will spend 99% of their processing time reading other LLMs outputs.
Resumes written by LLMs and read by LLMs
PR summaries written by LLMs and read by LLMs
Emails written by LLMs and read by LLMs
...
Everything could just be a few bullet points... these things were already 90% posturing and trying to sound fancy by using convoluted sentences and big words, now that it's been automated what's the point
Given their extensive expertise in browser and OS plugins, I understand this move.
You can foresee a challenging future for the Grammarly product for a long time. Now that the "improve writing with AI" feature is everywhere, there are fewer reasons to pay for their subscription (e.g., I didn't renew this year because I have multiple AI subscriptions, and Grammarly was the least critical of them).
However, for me, the main advantage of Grammarly was the user experience of having mistakes and suggestions inline and just a click away while editing, as well as the quality of the suggestions (with an LLM chat, there's a lot of trial and error and junk you need to filter out).
I understand their move, but I wish they had developed a good minimalist native text editor with the same Grammarly suggestions and click-to-correct interface.
That is my number one issue with startups. They all start minimalist and end up bloated, some sooner than others, and what made them great disappears behind all this bloat. See: tyranny of the marginal user.
Stop using Grammarly. There are better options available that don't exist just to collect your data to sell it to the highest bidder or feed it into an LLM.
One day, we will see a demand for services that are the opposite of "Superhuman". For example, a service like: "Deteriorate this text and make it look weirdly human. Add some typos and errors here and there, so that the final output looks 100% human-written."
The company is being rebranded, not the product. Makes total sense, considering the brand equity, and also them going in the direction of productivity suite. Could be interesting.
Moving to "AI" and away from a well-known brand smacks of desperation. Makes me wonder if the industry-wide trend of shoving AI into every product and feature, and channelling all investment into AI, is equally desperate.
I get that software companies are rebranding products with superhero/god terminology to increase their perceived value and raise margin, but its not working for me because they are losing product differentiation. Why would I choose this app among the dozens of other tech products that promise godlike AI capabilities?
Even if we haven't hit the LLM ceiling, we've hit a ceiling on branding for sure. I'm interested to see where these names go next. Uberbeing! Omnipotence Plugin!
"Grammarly announced Tuesday the acquisition of email client Superhuman in a push to build out its AI for its productivity suite. Neither companies provided details about the financial terms of the deal..... Superhuman was founded by Rahul Vohra, Vivek Sodera, and Conrad Irwin. The company raised more than $114 million in funding from backers including a16z, IVP, and Tiger Global, with its last valuation at $825 million, according to data from venture data analytics firm Traxcn." [1]
Interested to understand what would be the terms of the deal if Superhuman was valued at $825mm and what the founders cleared if the all the VCs rounds had 2-3x liquidation preferences.
I absolutely hate it when companies rename themselves. I know a company called an extremely stupid name by its young founder and they did not rename for decades and are now worth a bit short of $4T.
Why do the smaller ones constantly need to change their name. Like that changes anything in their substance.
This is getting to the antivirus bundle level of adding pointless features. I want grammarly to... check my grammar. I don't want it to write for me or suggest things.
> I want grammarly to... check my grammar
That's not how it works today.
No sepulcator company gets profitable by shipping just a sepulcator. A sepulcator absolutely must have AI, monthly subscription, cloud services and - up until recently - has to be blockchain-based.
What's a sepulcator?
Doesn't matter. No VC is going to invest in it unless it has AI.
It's a prominent element of the civilization of Ardrites from the planet of Enteropia; see "Sepulkaria"
A widget.
Perhaps you do, but I think this misses the point. For-profit writing is the most successful use case for LLMs today. A significant proportion of all the docs I see at work reek of LLMs. A fair amount of articles you read in the media are written by LLMs. Lawyers use it for legal briefs (sometimes with comical results). Doctors use it for patient notes.
Basically, a significant portion of the population doesn't like writing or isn't good at it and really wants a "get it done" button. I might not love it, but the market is there.
So Grammarly is addressing a very real need. Further, it's really the only way for them to stay relevant, because you're getting AI editing / writing features in Gmail, Docs, Office 365, etc.
> So Grammarly is addressing a very real need. Further, it's really the only way for them to stay relevant, because you're getting AI editing / writing features in Gmail, Docs, Office 365, etc.
They are a feature, not a company, with my apologies to Jobs. To your point, software and tools with native writing functionality can incorporate their own LLM support, as can native apps on mobile and desktop. Anything local will eventually be on device imho as model efficiency improves, or perhaps in browser (if not making API calls).
> because you're getting AI editing / writing features in Gmail, Docs, Office 365, etc.
To me it is exactly why this move doesn't make sense.
Why would I use Grammarly/Superhuman for writing with LLM assistance, when I have an out-of-box alternative that, at worst, is equal?
They can't even compete with pricing, because they need to use their competitor models
> Why would I use Grammarly/Superhuman for writing with LLM assistance, when I have an out-of-box alternative that, at worst, is equal?
I think the answer is basically that they have brand recognition and they're trying to ride it. Right now, they have two bad choices: become irrelevant more quickly by having a product that's inferior to built-in LLM tools, or become irrelevant more slowly by having a tool that's comparable (and also works anywhere on the internet, not just on specific websites).
My Anker earbuds have a new update adding AI. :P
Too bad, management wants you to train this shitty chatbot they plan to replace you with
[dead]
A great tool if you want your own unique voice to blend seamlessly into the tidal wave of LLM-generated mush flooding the internet.
I really like your comment. Of course all the LLM-generated content really is for other LLMs to read/scrape.
Recently switched to Harper https://writewithharper.com/, a vastly superior grammar checker
Harper is a nice alternative, but it's still rough around the edges.
For instance, if you have a misspelled word, and the correction options come up, you can't get out of them and return to where you were by using the keyboard. You can hit Escape to close them, but it doesn't restore your place in the text field, so you have to use your mouse to get back where you were.
As a programmer who tries to use the keyboard as much as possible, this (incredibly easy to fix, I'm sure) bug drives me crazy! Almost enough to make me go back to Grammarly.
That seems to me not like a "rough around the edges" thing but "most basic, table-stakes feature". If you cannot resume typing after either cancelling a correction, or doing a correction, I'd say it is very broken and not ready to be marketed as a functioning tool. I mean, it's supposed to help you write, not make it more cumbersome.
The name Superhuman makes a lot more sense for a company with a suite of AI productivity products. The "Grammarly" name was too focused on their original use case of just improving writing.
It is a good product name. I can almost imagine an unimaginably rich AI company buying it just for the name.
Grammarly bought Superhuman and it’s already a public company
Not a public company.
Ah my mistake
"Superhuman" gives me the creeps as a German.
I know it has a positive connotation with super heroes in US culture but for me it sounds like Übermensch. Especially as it is the direct opposite of "subhuman".
Plus outside of tech bro circles, people either actively hate generative AI or are at least super annoyed by the over-hype of it. Duolingo went all in on AI and got a huge shitstorm.
Branding your company on a current hype that might either burst soon or/and leave lots of people unemployed is maybe not a wise decisions.
> I know it has a positive connotation with super heroes in US culture
I'm not sure about this. I'm a US citizen, but it absolutely does not have positive connotations to me at all. It has very negative ones.
Are you a native English speaker? I can't think of a scenario where "superhuman" has negative connotations in American English. When we say someone has superhuman skill, or speed, or strength, it is always a positive thing.
> Are you a native English speaker?
Yes, I am. Born and raised in the US.
There are instances where the term is used in a positive sense, yes, but those are limited in scope. "Superhuman strength" rather than just "superhuman".
"Superhuman" on its own is a term that has long been tightly associated with a wide variety of horrible things. Eugenics, for example.
"Superhuman" is just "Superman" but without getting sued by DC comics.
And with the additional small hint of Nazism for Europeans. But otherwise exactly the same more or less :)
Nope. You must be thinking of the terms "Untermensch" (used a lot by Nazis) and "Übermensch" (introduced by Nietzsche, and rarely used by Nazis). "Supermensch" was never used at all.
Growing up in the 90s in Sweden, we definitively were taught that "Übermensch" ("Övermänniska" in Swedish, literally "Above Human") was something the Nazis promoted during their time, together with demoting "Untermensch". Maybe that's wrong, and if so I thank you for the correction, but "Superhuman" does give me similar vibes regardless, not because of the exact wording, but because of the ideas/concepts.
HN can be so funny sometimes. An actual German says "hey maybe this specific word shouldn't be used", and a random follows it up with "Nope, you're wrong." lmao
Because Ubermensch comes from Nietzche a century before the Nazis, as said, and had also a big influence on anarchists. No-one suggested that "Superhuman" shouldn't be used, either. A some point people need to put things in context and not "get the creeps" over any little things. I am sure that Germans don't even notice all those "Volkswagen" around them...
maybe given their history of literally accepting Hitler, Germans shouldn't be the ones policing what words can be used?
Given everyone's history, someone somewhere has accepted evil in every country, so no one should police what words mean?
Why would Germans be an authority on what words should or shouldn't be used in English?
This is sort of a reverse version of the very common trend of American political correctness / sensitivity language being exported around the world. Our ancestors committed heinous crimes, therefore we get to tell you how to speak, even though you had nothing to do with it.
A German person just said that it gives them nazi viber, nothing about English words that should be used.
Person above argues that the words are different therefore such connection can't be made which is just... wrong because they reply in a thread where someone literally said they made that connection.
In short, we're explicitly talking about what Europeans see (me too, I'm not German), not what Americans should do.
> nothing about English words that should be used
The comment I'm replying to says, verbatim, "hey maybe this specific word shouldn't be used" (as a paraphrase of that commenter's understanding of the argument being made by the German). That is what I'm responding to.
I guess I don't see what the problem is?
If someone says a particular word or phrase is problematic for them, no one can tell them they're wrong. You cannot dictate how other people respond to language, and it's really weird to see people trying to do that.
Yes, the idea of the death of God also gives me shivers.
'Superhuman' sales representative: "Then you might be interested in our new Deus Ex package".
You cannot expect other countries to stop using normal words because they remind you of the bad things your country did.
Shame for what Germany did during the Nazi regime is something for Germans to bear, not Americans. We are not at fault for that, and we have no obligation to change our own culture to accommodate your guilt.
Just as everything tends to evolve into something resembling a crab, all software seems to eventually become email — and, now, an LLM.
“Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.” — Zawinski’s Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski
Thanks, I was slightly off!
To be fair, productivity and writing tools are a better fit for LLMs than a lot of other use cases.
Responding to you and fullshark, I'm not criticizing, only observing. Just as there is some evolutionary pressure causing carcinization, it's interesting to consider what pressure pushes things in the directions of email and LLMs.
I don't know what it is, but would love to hear others' ideas.
I think "email" is a bit of a overly specific term, but if we take a small step back, communicating with other humans is usually the most important part of any piece of software.
I have a feeling these things will spend 99% of their processing time reading other LLMs outputs.
Resumes written by LLMs and read by LLMs
PR summaries written by LLMs and read by LLMs
Emails written by LLMs and read by LLMs
...
Everything could just be a few bullet points... these things were already 90% posturing and trying to sound fancy by using convoluted sentences and big words, now that it's been automated what's the point
This company cannot afford to ignore LLMs.
Given their extensive expertise in browser and OS plugins, I understand this move.
You can foresee a challenging future for the Grammarly product for a long time. Now that the "improve writing with AI" feature is everywhere, there are fewer reasons to pay for their subscription (e.g., I didn't renew this year because I have multiple AI subscriptions, and Grammarly was the least critical of them).
However, for me, the main advantage of Grammarly was the user experience of having mistakes and suggestions inline and just a click away while editing, as well as the quality of the suggestions (with an LLM chat, there's a lot of trial and error and junk you need to filter out).
I understand their move, but I wish they had developed a good minimalist native text editor with the same Grammarly suggestions and click-to-correct interface.
That is my number one issue with startups. They all start minimalist and end up bloated, some sooner than others, and what made them great disappears behind all this bloat. See: tyranny of the marginal user.
I thought Grammarly's brand was far better known than "Superhuman". I've never seen a YouTube ad for the latter.
Imagine searching web or any system really for "superhuman". Grammarly will be buried ten pages deep under other results.
It won't be. Similarly, searching for "x" on Google returns Twitter as the first hit.
Search results are optimized based on inferred intent, and the intent of most people searching for "superhuman" will be the Grammarly app.
Stop using Grammarly. There are better options available that don't exist just to collect your data to sell it to the highest bidder or feed it into an LLM.
Superhuman is such a funny name. It implies the Red Squiggles feature was the beginning of man-machine symbiosis...
One day, we will see a demand for services that are the opposite of "Superhuman". For example, a service like: "Deteriorate this text and make it look weirdly human. Add some typos and errors here and there, so that the final output looks 100% human-written."
The company is being rebranded, not the product. Makes total sense, considering the brand equity, and also them going in the direction of productivity suite. Could be interesting.
Moving to "AI" and away from a well-known brand smacks of desperation. Makes me wonder if the industry-wide trend of shoving AI into every product and feature, and channelling all investment into AI, is equally desperate.
I get that software companies are rebranding products with superhero/god terminology to increase their perceived value and raise margin, but its not working for me because they are losing product differentiation. Why would I choose this app among the dozens of other tech products that promise godlike AI capabilities?
Supercringe
Even if we haven't hit the LLM ceiling, we've hit a ceiling on branding for sure. I'm interested to see where these names go next. Uberbeing! Omnipotence Plugin!
The society is not yet ready to discuss branding ecology. Nice names are a finite resource.
Strange that they didn't create a new name. Could it be that that was a deal breaker for Superhuman company and Grammarly wanted the deal so much?
"Grammarly announced Tuesday the acquisition of email client Superhuman in a push to build out its AI for its productivity suite. Neither companies provided details about the financial terms of the deal..... Superhuman was founded by Rahul Vohra, Vivek Sodera, and Conrad Irwin. The company raised more than $114 million in funding from backers including a16z, IVP, and Tiger Global, with its last valuation at $825 million, according to data from venture data analytics firm Traxcn." [1]
Interested to understand what would be the terms of the deal if Superhuman was valued at $825mm and what the founders cleared if the all the VCs rounds had 2-3x liquidation preferences.
edit: added source
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/01/grammarly-acquires-ai-emai...
Acquired 4 months ago, rebranding now.
I absolutely hate it when companies rename themselves. I know a company called an extremely stupid name by its young founder and they did not rename for decades and are now worth a bit short of $4T.
Why do the smaller ones constantly need to change their name. Like that changes anything in their substance.
Official post: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/company/introducing-new-super...
They are paying UGC creators $10 per 1000 views. Ambitious.
[dead]