My experience with the AI class was weird in the sense that the profs would say things like "I don't blame you if you got this one wrong" but then score the ans

My experience with the AI class was weird in the sense that the profs would say things like "I don't blame you if you got this one wrong" but then score the answer wrong. This gets to a greater question (which they also addressed) is that a deeper more involved question makes you think more, and hence they felt that people who got things wrong perhaps did more work and challenged themselves more, which as a whole a good thing, and I'd agree. Some things just don't lend well to being binary right or wrong. In the ML class however, their code was a little more modular, and they had a lot more clear warnings about what you could and couldn't touch, and then the grading system was interactive and you could repeat your tests (and they did like what was described here and tried for more general problem spaces to see if your answer was written generally as well)... So this is tough! The cynic in me says that this can make one go down the rabbit whole that "the man" is trying to indoctrinate you into an arbitrary system of their own choosing that isn't necessarily empirically correct, but then I remember my intro to Philosophy where they state that you really have to frame the debate or else all bets are off, and you just can't get any work done in chaos in like that.