As someone that wrote software like this -- and disagreed with the subject of the story a decade ago when he tried to get us with both the Gettysburg Address as well as Kennedy's inaugural address (both of which are GREAT speeches with historical value, but shitty college entrance exams) -- you are looking at this entirely wrong.
I can give you background of how these things are generally graded. 3 people get an essay, look at it for 30 to 45 seconds, throw a score and it and if they are all within a margin of error, they move on. If not, a senior rater comes in and and they can replace one other person and it is now within margin of error, they move on as well. If not, it is workshopped for 5 minutes.
In 99% of the cases, you have less than 2 minutes of viewing on your essay between 3 people.
Enter the computer...the raters are told they are going to be rated themselves. We can throw a lot more prerated essays that had been normed by a large group of raters, and train the rater. They know they are being measured and the average rater spends two or more minutes reading through these. You actually have MORE time with eyes on your essay with a computer rater involved than you do without. Having a computer rater doesn't remove humans -- it adds a safe guard. It means one person spends more time and is verified with something that is unbiased (within reason...actually was able to figure out subtle racism and otherwise that wouldn't have been detected with purely human raters...'black' or 'hispanic' names and scores go down...'asian' names and the scores go up...give the same essay with the names switched and the humans change ratings...the computer was actually more objective).
I haven't been involved with this sort of thing in a decade, and I can only assume it is much better than when I left my project...but lazy isn't the right word. Underpaid and overworked? Yeah...but not lazy.