[aardvark179]

The project itself is not a discussion, but responses and reactions to it form a discussion.

As to neutrality being a prerequisite, are you trying to separate the idea of discussion from debate? I feel you may either have different basic definitional ideas than the people you are arguing with.

On this project specifically, and the notion of AI in government in general, and am reminded of a quote about late nineteenth and early twentieth century utopian fiction, “The authors expend all their effort describing the method of distributing resources without expanding on what the fair distribution is.”

[freemanon]

I guess my issue is that IMO these explorations of provocative issues are best done with the least amount of prejudice. When we're clouded by repulsion or other emotional states, we might fail to properly analyze the matter at hand.

By declaring the described future as undesirable, the authors' question and wish to stimulate a discussion is clouded with prejudice, IMHO.