Very insightful New Year's eve reading, thank you Dr. Rupert Wegerif. I found your article to offer a compelling vision of collective intelligence grounded in dialogue, relational meaning-making, and digitally mediated learning. From a human-tech entanglement and Global South perspectives, the argument presented is persuasive but respectfully, IMO, usefully incomplete. While dialogic spaces are presented as inherently generative, a view I also broadly share, the article offers limited engagement (perhaps understandably so) with how power, persistent disagreement, and non-Western (e.g. Afrocentric) ways of knowing are sustained within such spaces. Dialogue, when not aimed at consensus, can surface epistemic conflict rather than resolve it. Without naming this explicitly, collective intelligence risks quietly reproducing dominant knowledge systems. This raises questions that probably extend your argument: Who defines the terms of dialogue in collective intelligence? How are knowledge traditions that resist translation or consensus protected? And can dialogue support decolonisation in education if deep epistemic tensions are treated as problems to manage rather than resources to preserve?