>>304
>This is the biggest strawman ever. Anon only said that a non-human intelligence is necessary for a planned economy. Nothing about babysitting, nothing about responsibilities.
It's no strawman. "Ruler" is not interchangable with "diagnostics tools". You went full cettle.
>And it makes perfect sense too, if you remove the human element from economics, you've removed all of the selfishness, all of the greed.
Either the AI has no will and therefore it's at the mercy of people who run it and tweak it to come up with that they like to see or the AI is independent and therefore will be subject to it's own autismal oddities.
>Listen, I know you're easily frightened and have issues with your sense of agency, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with what anon said. Nothing you're bringing up is based on evidence whatsoever, it's all just impulse and feels.
Yeah. Me adressing what's been actually said (which you retroactively try to change - and then go on about strawmen, how cute) requires extensive research (because the pattern of givbing up the power over yourself for safwerty etc. isn't researched enough). The assertion that an AI can run an economy packed full of AIs and auged up people geared to game it for all they can rerquires nothing, nothing at all.