>Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities...

Eh, sure you can dig into anything as deep as you want to go. To look at any economic detail, you could follow that into sociology, psychology, neuroscience, biology, chemistry, nuclear physics, and quantum mechanics. Or you could look at any of the potential layers built upon economics. So sure, "infinitely richer" in the sense that is all this stuff is complicated.

....but the solution is to reject reductive explanations? They just pointed out that there's an infinite amount to know about anything. How do you wrap your head around anything? You first learn a simple version. "Things fall down". THEN you learn about orbits. Then you get into spacetime. Of course you reduce it down to something manageable. You learn about edge cases and expand your knowledge, but you have to start somewhere.

"Clinging" to the simple explainations isn't a good idea. It's not going to get you into orbit. But learning about orbits doesn't mean things stop falling down.

Huh, what are they called now?

Like turning a perfectly normal tuber into some abominable color?

Or increasing it's size by 500%?

Or, you know, seedless? Those watermelons are just crossbreeds, like mules.

Or jesus fucking Christ what the hell did we do to wolves to end up with pugs!? If there are cosmic space police we're all going to space jail for this.

Cultivation, or selective breeding, has such potential because it is literal gene editing. Just not precise.

More people want it. People want it more. People have less to sell. Or people want money less.

>what can be done about it?

Price fixing. Generally called a "controlled economy". This has been shown to be a massively bad idea.

Support more people making the thing. Subsidies, removing regulation, making it cheaper to make the thing, bring in more workers,

Raise the value of the dollar (and/or don't let inflation happen). That's about as easy as not printing more money. With fractional reserve banking (banks can loan out more money than they have) you also need to raise interest rates.

Iowa is truly the powerhouse of tech development.

Ok buddy, first off, you've got to spell check your work. See all those red squigglies? You need to fix them. There's real reasons behind all those spelling and grammar rules and while most of us here have enough language skills to see past your mistakes, it DOES hamper the conversation.

Beyond spelling and picking the wrong words, you're premise is nuts.

>lets day that there is a very advanced AI that has extremely complex prediction and problem solving ability.

That's easy because it's true. But complexity doesn't imply accuracy nor viable solutions.

>this AI could help governments take the objectively better choice when presented with an objective

Essentially already happening. Analysts really do use AI driven models at predicting the economy, political reactions, social reactions, and how well they'd poll after various decisions. They tell the leaders what will happen if they do X, Y, or Z, and then the leaders do what they want.

> BUT it would still be given a decision to take. i mean like, it would never be told by the goverment representstives: "ok whats the best way to make every citizen to hsve a better and happier life??". because the awnser would probably include the powerfull giving much of their resources/power.

....I'm pretty sure I get what you're saying and this is very on point. Because yeah, they all essentially know how to help the masses. They largely choose not to do that. People to them, like everything else, are just tools. You could run your engine at 1000RPM and go 45mph and the engine wouldn't have such a hard time: less wear and tear, fewer oil changes, easier braking. But you don't want to go 45. You want to go 80. And so you rev it.

>So, when this technology is at the necessary level, and it has been proven to be 100% effective

It is, right now, at that "necessary level". BUT, it will never be anything conceptually "100% effective".

>control of what the AI is beeing asked?

It's not really a matter of controlling what the AI is being used for. You can call up various sociologist at various academics and ask them to run their models for pretty much anything. It's work though, so don't expect free labor. But we don't even need AI to know that raising the minimum wage would help out the masses and raise the average quality of life in the nation. But the people in power don't want that.

You're trying to apply a technological solution to a political and socioeconomic problem. It's not a matter of finding the solution to the problem, it's that nobody in power cares about that problem.

Science, answering all those fun unanswerable philosophical questions since the 17th century. oooooh, they HATE that. This is going to have rage voting and banhammers abound. You've stepped right into the taboo topic of this place. See, philosophy is useless. It doesn't have any answers. It just makes questions. Which is a great thing to do and gets people thinking. It's a fun time. But the moment any of those questions can get answered, it leaves the realm of philosophical and enters reality, ie, the realm of science. Things like "What is man?" really got the ball rolling in ancient Greece, but once we learned about DNA, compatible code-bases, specification, and the horrifically nuanced details therein, philosophers had to move on to "what is a person?". And maybe we'll scoot them off that topic someday, but who knows.

Do "A tree falls in the forest" and Shrodinger's cat next.

>. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

Obviously biological, unless you're being poetic.

....are you trying to talk about "personhood"?