The assumption that human learning and “machine learning” are somehow equivalent (in a physical, ethical, or legal sense—the domain shifts throughout the essay)

The assumption that human learning and “machine learning” are somehow equivalent (in a physical, ethical, or legal sense—the domain shifts throughout the essay) is not supported with evidence here. They spend a long time describing how machine learning is different from human learning on a computational level, but that doesn’t seem to impact the rest of the argument. I wish AI proponents would use the plain meaning of words in their persuasive arguments, instead of muddying the waters with anthropomorphic metaphors that smuggle in the conclusion.