I've heard stories from others in the industry of companies using tools like this on their human-facing documentation and requiring a certain score from them. Imagine using Microsoft Word's spelling and grammar checker, not being able to add or override its decisions (without following an extremely lengthy and bureaucratic process), and being required to have less than X "defects" per 100 words. Naturally, this results in documentation that is perfectly grammatical and free of spelling errors, but verbose, full of unusual phrasing, and next to useless for its actual purpose of informing a human.
Grading students' code using a machine is not such a bad idea in contrast, because in that case there is [1] no exceptions possible in a programming language, [2] the machine (compiler) has to understand it anyway, and [3] it does save time verifying correctness. But communication in a human language really needs to be assessed by humans. Anyone who thinks "AI" can accurately assess human language is either severely delusional, or trying to make $$$ from it.
Grading students' code using a machine is not such a bad idea in contrast, because in that case there is [1] no exceptions possible in a programming language, [2] the machine (compiler) has to understand it anyway, and [3] it does save time verifying correctness. But communication in a human language really needs to be assessed by humans. Anyone who thinks "AI" can accurately assess human language is either severely delusional, or trying to make $$$ from it.