## Google Bakes Gemini Deeper Into Workspace — And the Results Are Mixed

A major shift is underway in productivity software. As 2026 progresses, tech giants are embedding generative AI directly into the tools millions of people use every day — and Google is no exception. Despite widespread skepticism in the United States toward AI-generated content, Google is pushing forward, rolling out a suite of new Gemini-powered features across its Workspace apps. For now, these capabilities are available exclusively to English-speaking subscribers on Google's AI Pro and Ultra plans.

## What's Actually New in Google Workspace

The headline addition to Google Docs is a feature called **"Help Me Create."** Unlike its predecessor — the more modest "Help Me Write" found in the Chrome browser — this tool attempts to generate complete first drafts of documents from a single prompt. To do so, it draws on your Gmail inbox, files stored in Drive, and live data pulled from the internet.

The ambition here is significant. Google isn't just offering a writing assistant; it's building toward a future where AI handles the initial heavy lifting of putting thoughts on paper.

Google Sheets and Slides received similar upgrades, both now capable of assembling full draft presentations and spreadsheets using web data and your personal files. Google Docs also gained a structural mimicry feature, which lets users replicate the format and layout of previous documents when starting something new. Meanwhile, Google Drive received AI-generated file summaries and improved natural language search capabilities.

## Putting 'Help Me Create' Through Its Paces

Testing focused primarily on Google Docs, starting with something lighthearted: a St. Patrick's Day itinerary. Within seconds, Gemini scanned Gmail and the web to produce a short, organized plan. It even pulled up existing flight reservations to determine the correct city for the date — a detail that was equal parts impressive and unsettling. The itinerary also included suggestions for local Irish pubs. As an initial trial, the output was fast and functionally solid.

### The Real Test: Drafting a Tech News Story

The more challenging experiment involved asking Gemini to write a 600-word, first-person hands-on article about Google's own Workspace launch — the kind of piece a working journalist might produce. Press materials from Google were attached as source documents, and the request included a directive for personal insights that would help readers understand the update.

Of course, Gemini couldn't actually go hands-on with the product. What it produced instead was technically coherent but deeply generic.

*"With the latest updates to Google Workspace, we are seeing Gemini move beyond a side-panel novelty into the role of a true collaborative partner,"* the AI draft read. *"The real power isn't just in 'AI writing'; it's in the deep integration across your personal and professional data silos."*

The prose was clean, structured — and utterly lifeless. It read like a press release written by a committee, scrubbed of any real perspective or personality.

## Where These Tools Shine — and Where They Fall Flat

After generating multiple drafts across different use cases, a clear pattern emerged. Gemini's new Workspace features perform best in structured, low-stakes environments — think internal memos, marketing copy, or corporate communications where the goal is clarity over creativity. For anyone needing to produce polished boilerplate quickly, these tools genuinely deliver.

Personal expression, however, is a different story. Even after uploading samples of original writing and instructing Gemini to match that tone and voice, the results still felt generic. The AI gravitated toward safe, predictable sentence structures regardless of the stylistic input provided.

A follow-up request — asking Gemini to rewrite the draft in the voice of a seasoned tech journalist — produced a marginally improved version, but one that still leaned on the kind of buzzword-heavy framing that reads as artificial almost immediately.

*"The 'Help Me Create' engine has moved past generating generic corporate-speak, instead synthesizing live data points across your Drive, Gmail, and Chat history,"* the revised draft claimed. Given the evidence, that assertion is debatable at best.

## The Bigger Picture

There's a legitimate concern embedded in all of this. As AI writing tools grow more capable and more integrated, pressure may mount — particularly in fast-moving digital media environments — to rely on them for routine content production. Early-career writers working under high output demands could find these tools positioned less as aids and more as replacements.

For now, though, the gap between AI-generated prose and authentic human writing remains wide enough to matter. Gemini's Workspace tools are undeniably more capable than earlier iterations, with impressive speed and accurate recall from personal data sources. But they still produce writing that carries an unmistakable flatness — a by-the-numbers quality that no amount of prompt engineering has fully resolved.

The tools are useful. They are not, at least not yet, writers.

Google's Gemini-powered 'Help Me Create' drafts full documents in seconds. Here's what it does well, where it struggles, and what it means for writers.

Google Gemini 'Help Me Create' in Docs: Hands-On Review

large_gear_geminitools_GettyImages-2169339854.jpg

medium_gear_geminitools_GettyImages-2169339854.jpg

small_gear_geminitools_GettyImages-2169339854.jpg

thumbnail_gear_geminitools_GettyImages-2169339854.jpg

gear_geminitools_GettyImages-2169339854.jpg

Google's 'Help Me Create' in Docs Is Powered by Gemini — But Can It Actually Write?

## OpenAI Acquires Promptfoo to Fortify Its AI Agent Platform

OpenAI has announced the acquisition of Promptfoo, an AI security startup established in 2024 with a mission to defend large language models (LLMs) from malicious online threats. The announcement came on Monday, signaling the company's deepening commitment to building safer, enterprise-grade AI systems.

### Technology Integration Into OpenAI Frontier

According to an official blog post from OpenAI, Promptfoo's security capabilities will be woven into OpenAI Frontier — the company's enterprise platform designed to power autonomous AI agents — once the acquisition is formally completed. This integration marks a strategic step toward making agentic AI tools not only more capable, but significantly more secure.

## Why AI Security Is Now a Business Priority

The rapid rise of autonomous AI agents — systems capable of independently executing complex digital tasks — has sparked widespread enthusiasm over potential productivity gains across industries. However, this same advancement has opened new attack surfaces for bad actors seeking to exploit sensitive data or manipulate automated workflows.

This acquisition reflects a broader trend among frontier AI laboratories racing to demonstrate that their technologies are trustworthy and robust enough for deployment in high-stakes business environments.

### About Promptfoo and Its Founders

Promptfoo was co-founded by Ian Webster and Michael D'Angelo, who built the startup around tools designed to help organizations identify and address security vulnerabilities within LLMs. Their offerings include both an open source interface and a developer library, which have reportedly been adopted by more than 25% of Fortune 500 companies — a testament to the platform's real-world impact.

Despite its impressive reach, Promptfoo raised a relatively modest $23 million in total funding. The startup was valued at $86 million following its most recent funding round in July 2025, according to data from PitchBook. OpenAI has not disclosed the financial terms of the acquisition.

## What Promptfoo's Technology Brings to OpenAI

OpenAI outlined several key capabilities that Promptfoo's technology will bring to its agent platform:

- **Automated red-teaming** to proactively identify weaknesses in AI systems
- **Security evaluation of agentic workflows** to detect potential vulnerabilities before they can be exploited
- **Real-time activity monitoring** to address risk management and regulatory compliance needs

OpenAI also confirmed its intention to continue developing and expanding Promptfoo's open source offerings, ensuring the broader developer community continues to benefit from the platform's security tools.

## A Signal of the Industry's Security-First Shift

This move underscores a pivotal shift in how leading AI companies are approaching deployment. As autonomous agents become more deeply embedded in critical business operations, security is no longer an afterthought — it is a foundational requirement. By bringing Promptfoo's expertise in-house, OpenAI is positioning itself to lead not just in AI capability, but in AI trustworthiness.

OpenAI acquires AI security startup Promptfoo to integrate advanced red-teaming and vulnerability testing into its enterprise AI agent platform, OpenAI Frontier

OpenAI Acquires Promptfoo to Secure AI Agent Platform

large_GettyImages-2214107176.jpg

medium_GettyImages-2214107176.jpg

small_GettyImages-2214107176.jpg

thumbnail_GettyImages-2214107176.jpg

GettyImages-2214107176.jpg

OpenAI Strengthens AI Security by Acquiring Startup Promptfoo

## Grammarly's New AI Feature Borrows Famous Names — Without Permission

Grammarly recently rolled out a feature called **Expert Review**, promising users writing feedback inspired by some of the world's most respected authors, intellectuals, and journalists. Sounds impressive — until you dig a little deeper.

Launched in August 2025 as part of a broader wave of AI-powered upgrades, Expert Review appears as a sidebar tool within Grammarly's writing assistant. It offers revision suggestions framed as coming "from the perspective" of notable subject matter experts, giving the impression that a real authority is weighing in on your prose.

## Famous Names, Zero Involvement

As outlets like *Wired* and *The Verge* have pointed out, Grammarly presents this feedback as though it originates from well-known writers — living or deceased. Even more surprisingly, the feature reportedly invokes the names of active tech journalists working at major publications including *The Verge*, *Wired*, *Bloomberg*, and *The New York Times*.

None of these individuals appear to have been consulted, compensated, or asked for permission. When *The Verge* reached out for comment, Alex Gay, Vice President of Product and Corporate Marketing at Grammarly's parent company Superhuman, explained that these figures are referenced simply because their published work is "publicly available and widely cited."

Grammarly's own user documentation attempts to address the obvious concern, stating: *"References to experts in Expert Review are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities."*

## What Makes a Review 'Expert' If No Experts Are Involved?

That disclaimer might technically cover Grammarly's bases, but it opens up a much bigger question: if no real expert is actually reviewing your writing, in what meaningful sense is this an "expert review" at all?

Historian C.E. Aubin put it bluntly when speaking to *Wired*: **"These are not expert reviews, because there are no 'experts' involved in producing them."**

The feature appears to use AI models trained on publicly available writing to generate feedback that stylistically mimics how a given expert might respond — but that's a far cry from genuine human insight or editorial guidance.

## A Clever Idea With a Credibility Problem

On the surface, the concept behind Expert Review is genuinely interesting. The idea of receiving writing feedback tailored to the style and standards of a respected author or journalist has real appeal — especially for users looking to sharpen their craft.

But the execution raises serious ethical questions. Using someone's name and professional reputation to market an AI feature — without their knowledge — blurs an important line. It risks misleading users into believing they're receiving a quality of feedback that simply isn't there, while simultaneously trading on the credibility of real people who never agreed to participate.

## The Bottom Line

Grammarly's Expert Review feature is a prime example of how AI-powered tools can over-promise through clever branding. Wrapping algorithmic suggestions in the names of respected thinkers and writers may make the product feel more authoritative — but without genuine expert involvement, the "expert" label is little more than marketing gloss.

For users seeking genuine writing improvement, it's worth understanding exactly what these tools are — and what they aren't.

Grammarly's Expert Review feature uses famous names to offer AI writing tips — but none of those experts were consulted or gave permission.

Google's 'Help Me Create' in Docs Is Powered by Gemini — But Can It Actually Write?

OpenAI Strengthens AI Security by Acquiring Startup Promptfoo

Grammarly's 'Expert Review' Feature Has One Major Problem: No Actual Experts