Iambiguous :
The question can be reduced to which part in deed.
Ayn Rand is diverting the course to a naive rationalism consisting of literally shrugging off any
otherwise prejudicial argument, which opposes facts posited otherwise. Embededness means a great deal for her, in terms of developmental process based on naive, common sense ,postulated on power and will
of politptical, social , complex didactical motives
based on so called human wants.
The evolutionary context within which human
understanding is grounded, in an either-or mentality,
to a certain extent, has been transcended, the will to power has been differentiated and reversed to a power to will. Needs have been overcome to effect
this differentiation, after all Marx has shown trend to
an eventual outcome by the materializations of the dialectic.
But has it? If so, it pertains to the either- or as well to its differential analysis. This has nihilized one, as it did the other.
This is what has been meant by the late comment on human history having divulged itself of utility in this respect.
Thus, AI will subscribe to the choice of the right value, as far as motivation and outcome are
concerned, by vitiating a code of moral judgement, without digressing toward lower level choices.It depends on the program of choice, either one that further de differentiates toward ascribed choices of ascertaining meanings of probability based on lower level probabilization of meaning, and give up trying to outguess more integrative functions of building
architectures of yet to be realized models , based on
survivability, or existential needs.
A recourse of values modeled no longer on the
outmoded wants of an economy of profit and gain of a
propaganda of expansion between wants and gains consisting of prioritized affluence, as newly emerging existential needs become diverged from the spurious wants, as Marx said it would.
Why? Because societies’ grasp of the promotion of values has become decreasingly devalued, and the
newly and dramatically negative expectations of
existence have become tenious.
AI can be progressively feed this reversal, and
relative value can be set in a series of input -output
calculi of diminishing expectations.
In other words, the material dialectic, presupposed to favor an ontological union as a result a artificial synthesis between a common sense union between architectural modeling , may view the emergence of a new model, not in terms of a union of both, but a pre-existing identity.
Therefore this equivalency is jut a retro look at divergence, whereas the basic unity of the model may be viewed as the primordial model, which has been differentiated in the only way possible: By application of fields of probabilistic sub-modeling. That this was based on revision, as in Ayn Rand’s case, is of no doubt.
Doubting this on an extended timescale is like building a house of cards, guessing as to the glue used may hold in that extension.
That an AI can be constructed to overcome the future of feasibility in this regard, is like reading tomorrow’s paper today.
The basic value of currency, can not to be fore cast, as with a kind of guessing game, how far inflation will de-value it to a point where confidence in it will be lost.
Confidence in the diversion of value of currency in society-may not be able to be made to coincide with the lack of corresponding values associated with it.
This is always the case with the modality of current-value, where drastic social change is necessitated by much too diverted and simulated correspondence of non equitable values. And is not AI basically an attempt at simulation?