AI guiding human attention means that humans aren't guiding human attention, which means less human understanding of their reviews.

You cannot solve this problem by adding more AI on top. If lack of understanding is the problem, moving people even further away will only worsen the situation.

It is perfectly possible to be both masculine and non-toxic without being feminine. Refusing to allow that is toxic in itself.

Most teachers I know would be delighted if tech companies and management stopped trying to push tools on them that aren't fit for purpose.

1. It isn't

2. As you acknowledge, you need some 'foundational grounding', but the amount needed is quite a lot

3. The best way to teach metacognitive (and all other) skills is within a context

> the balance shifts from memorization to retrieval, iteration, verification

This has been trumpeted with every poorly-thought-out educational change, and it's a marker of unfamiliarity with the space. Memorisation hasn't been the focus ever; it's always about the other skills, and (some) memorisation is useful as part of that.

This is not at all uncommon; bizarre to find it represented as an oddity by a professional reviewer.

The people who work in education don't have this issue; the people who work in tech and assume that gives them expertise in education do.

> If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.

I disagree that the law (which has been changed, amended and clarified) has been 'consistently obvious', and I still maintain that the conclusion of 'immigrants aren't people' invalidates the law.

As I said above, a law you have to tie yourself in knots to justify might be a bad law.

There was nothing unremarkable about the great plains (note the name); they didn't produce the crop yield that you value, sure, but that's not the only possible metric to measure anything against.

I think farmers are great; I don't think we should exterminate countless species to save them from one of the extremely-predictable externalities of their jobs.

How many of the Pilgrims had a valid modern visa?

The potential predations of a small number of eagles nationally will make very little difference to the enormous number of sheep kept by a large number of farmers. They can handle the strain, and if it's really somehow too much, there are mitigations short of extinction available to them.

By the same token, artists are contributing members of society and they deserve a host of things, including enough to make a living.

You can't demand one group's output as a right for everyone else unless you also grant them rights in return.

Having weighed the pros and cons, I have come to the conclusion that the correct amount of (emotional) sympathy for the position of "we should kill all the eagles because farmers deserve only endless profits, never (minor) costs" is infinitesimal.

2. Farms that keep sheep have more than one lamb.

3. The government doesn't, and shouldn't, intervene to protect people against every single risk they face in business.