You are absolutely correct.

Research has shown over and over again that while people may have a preference for learning modality (visual, auditory, kinestetic), there is no such thing as a learning style that teaches you best. If you teach an "auditory learner" with visual techniques they will learn just as well as a "visual learner." There is no aptitude by treatment interaction for learning preference and teaching style. Learning styles is one of those myths perpetuated by people that want everyone to be good at something.

Look up studies on ability tracking. It has shown that when students are grouped into classrooms based on ability everyone does worse. Lower ability children benefit from exposure to those with higher abilities and higher ability children benefit from exposure to higher performing peers. If you ability track you reduce the lower track's exposure to good vocabulary and social skills. Often it clusters children with behavior problems which has been shown to increase behavior problems over time (kids learn bad behaviors from each other). Additionally, you have the effect of teacher expectations. Tell them they have the low group and non of the children will be exceeding that teacher's expectations for that year. Now flexible groups based on learning a specific skill for a lesson are different, but we've known since at least the 80s that ability tracking is harmful.

This is just a variation of what is used in many schools in the USA. Kids have an account that their parents put money in. Then, in the cafeteria, kids type in their account number to pay for lunch. This new system eliminates kids having to learn and remember their account number.

I'm not sure where you heard this but we're not yet at the point where we can diagnose with brain scans. In research there may be differences that are found between ADHD and non ADHD groups. However, that is a lot different for putting a person in and MRI and correctly classifying them. If you have any sort of reference that shows correct classification, as opposed to just finding differences, then please share the citation.

Also, most parents report improvement when their children are on restrictive diets due to confirmation biases and how our minds work. When something is difficult to do we usually will notice and remember the evidence that it worked. Keeping children on a restrictive diet is hard to do. In order to not feel bad about putting in all of this hard work for no result, parents tend to "see" the improvements even though empirical evidence has shown that special diets do not affect ASD symptoms.

You are correct, people with ASD have many more comorbid psychiatric conditions than most people realize. In fact adolescents with ASD tend to see the symptoms differently than their parents. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683603.2013.845737 The article is paywalled right now, but psychiatric conditions are a very real problem for many people with ASD.

^This. If only I had mod points.

Obviously you do not know what you are talking about. This is not about "popular" rejection of Freud. Professionals in the field no longer use it. And what would you say about the research linking genetics and autism. You may not be able to understand how genetic and nurturing effects on children can be separated, but I assure you that there are plenty of professionals who spend their time doing just that. It is easy to blame parents. Some are bad and some are wonderful. Until you spend some time working with these families maybe you should reserve your opinion since it seems to lack a factual basis.

That's where the zeroth law comes in. It was added in the stories for that exact sort of scenario.

A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

You are correct. Intensive ABA therapy which is one of the most costly treatments (and best empirically supported, there are lots of meta-analyses) costs around $40,000 a year. The cost is basically just paying a full time aid to do the treatment. And that isn't even a lifetime cost since it is an early intervention. Even if you were to say that you needed a full time aid for the entire life that is only about $40,000 a year with adjustments for inflation.