Well, yeah. I agree with all this, including the premise that automated teaching is potentially positive, maybe substantially so. But the case has to be made fo

Well, yeah. I agree with all this, including the premise that automated teaching is potentially positive, maybe substantially so. But the case has to be made for it. And the argument that there are things that should stay human relies on the presumption that we have not gotten to an adequate understanding that automated teaching would be as good as quality human teaching… I mean, everything I'm saying is based entirely on taking a charitable interpretation of someone else's comment. Instead of asserting that a comment is just a useless circular logic, I'm saying that we can make sense of it better. An assertion like "should be human interactions" is an assertion that there exist things that will never be better automated (at least compared to the higher-quality examples of human interactions). I'm disagreeing with your argument that such an assertion needs to specify which interactions those are. It's merely stating that it's a non-zero list and leaving the determination to others at a future time.