Thanks for the well argued reply. I guess I'm indeed arguing more from the "should we?" angle first, though I think human connection does matter and is current

Thanks for the well argued reply. I guess I'm indeed arguing more from the "should we?" angle first, though I think human connection does matter and is currently not fakeable (not by LLMs). It's harder to argue my point because people can (and have) formed strong attachments to "AIs" as simple as ELIZA. I don't doubt there are people out there who can form a strong bond to a Tamagotchi "pet". That's really a human trait, to see "someone" where there is none, or very little of it. In a way, AI (or the companies marketing, anyway) has a dangerous potential to hack and exploit this human tendency to attribute feelings or personality to stuff. To be clear, I'm not disparaging AI tools or saying AI has no place in the classroom as a tool to assist teachers. I'm arguing that this won't replace teachers -- the original comment I replied to argued the ony reason AIs won't replace teachers is legal, but I disagree -- because teachers are not "teaching tools"; they are much more than that. A teacher is not a machine with coffee and questions as input, and lessons or disciplinarian actions as output. > But it doesn't matter if they're human or not. Dogs and cats often provide a similar connection (both growing up as a companion, and a being to look after as an adult, though the dog owners I know really don't like anyone treating dogs as "fur babies") I know you said not to look at works of (scifi) fiction, but have you read Philip K. Dick's "Precious Artifact"? Your mention of dogs and cats brought it to mind; if you've read it you'll know why :)