[bmomb]

I think a world in this scenario is pretty much a dystopia.

If every person chooses for the better response and action given the a situation how can a individual be unique?

If all husbands reply to a bum in the exactly same way why do you really need a husband? Failing is a big part of being human, sometimes that can cause harm but failing and learning is one of ours core functions.

I rather be good than be you?

(Sorry if i made my post a bit 'agressive', its not my intent, english is not my main language and i still have to learn how to write properly)

[nine_k]

In your definition, being unique is being unlike others, so you are heavily shaped by others already, trying to squeeze in to a niche not yet claimed. I don't see how being forced to be unlike others is any better than being forced to be like others: you're being forced either way.

Also, I don't think that asking for advice removes agency. You still have to think if the advice is applicable to your unique situation, how can it be modified to fit better, and which of several conflicting pieces of advice has more merit. An advice from Siri on any life situation is nigh useless without a deeper understanding of the situation, a Siri can't have it unless she lived a big chunk of your life. So, armed with whatever advice, you still remain ultimately responsible.

[bmomb]

I think that the uniqueness is not defined by being unlike others but by being on your on, when yourself process the sintuation and decide to follow it.

And for your second argument, it’s just to easy to follow the computers “orders”, a lot of people would just go for the order because it’s already justified, something along the lines of “I would do different, but the machine told me that everyone that on in that way get something wrong”.

I agree that this type of software would be good when one needs advices, but it would have to be complete trustworthy, giving wrong advices to a suicidal person by example can be devastating (and in this case not even thinking about the manipulation that would be possible by the corporation).

[crypt1d]

I don't think that every husband would be replying the same to the 'bum problem'. I'd expect the response to be tailored based on some specific traits of both husband and wife and based on experience in similar types of marriages/relationships.

I do agree with you that I'd rather make my own mistakes, than try to be a perfect partner by using an app. The idea is definitely interesting, but scary at the same time. It sounds like something out of The Black Mirror show :)

P.S. your English is great, nothing to worry about!

[gregknicholson]

> I'd expect the response to be tailored based on some specific traits of both husband and wife and based on experience in similar types of marriages/relationships.

I'm wary of trying to reverse-engineer human behaviour, especially as it applies to personal relationships.

Besides, who decides what's the “best” course of action here? Who decides what the goal is — length of relationship? Happiness? (How do you measure that? Pleasure endorphins? Well then the correct response is you should stop talking to your partner, and do some exercise and drugs!)

In practice, the person who decides is the person in Google's office at 17:00 on a Friday.

(This is why driverless cars are hellishly scary, by the way. Any car that can be controlled by computer should have to use only publicly-auditable software — i.e. everything must be open-source and all builds must be fully reproducible. At least then you can theoretically be certain you know who your car will decide to save in an emergency, and why. How long before `git blame` is invoked in court in a murder case?)

[lifeisstillgood]

I completely agree on the "open" issue - its what took hundreds of years to get to "you can read the law as it is written down"

[twobyfour]

Pretty sure that the purpose of a husband goes beyond bum flattery.