Objective rules means no opportunity of injection of subjectivity by the regulatory bodies.
No subjectivity means no opportunity for "rent seeking".
No rent seeking means no additional power or profit for politicians.
Therefore, simply "treat all traffic equally" is a definition of Net Neutrality that won't be tolerated.
It's a question of scale and data-mining objective.
Give me everything you've ever posted, let's bet on whether I can come up with a one-paragraph "summary" that "represents you" that's disqualifying enough for your next job as read by HR, or a political run as read by the public.
Two to one.
Yes, as you suggest, here it will make little difference, because the government will outsource it.
Elsewhere, they probably will as well, but if they don't, the government and those humans optimizing for the government's benefit will do no better.
Neither profit not politics will provide the "objective right thing according to the data".
The problem is that what to "solve for" is something the machine can't self-determine. It's not a function of the data or the computer, it will always be specified by humans.
The data itself can support "optimize for broadest human compassionate benefit" or "optimize for greatest profit"--which is better as an objective, is a value judgment. Guess which one developers are going to be told by corporate management to code for?
...has at least 3 levels of meta here.
"Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."
Even that you get wrong.
Science is what philosophy says it is, and the correct branch it's under is epistemology.
Repeat your circular, coming-from-nowhere, demonstrated-wrong scoping and definition, though.
Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.
First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.
Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".
And both were false.
As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.
You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.
Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.
Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.
Fix your understanding anyway.
So, editing the irrelevancies, your point to all this is to say that this particular medical/scientific process does not lead, in your mind, to the definitional questions of "what does 'human' mean exactly" posed by genetic manipulation in general (as also widely noted and discussed by others), that my actual post was addressing.
Okay, let's be clear. -You- replied to -my- broad high-level statement of logical implications of manipulating genetic processes in a general sense, for which my post was expanding on an even more broadly-stated parent post.
I do not know why you didn't post your as a reply to the originating article summary--that makes a lot more sense than to my particular post, for which it is an irrelevant focusing on a particular technique, and skipping my comment entirely, apparently with an air of "I know a lot about a subset of the science, so I'll go ahead and talk about that and not address your post as a supposed way of addressing it".
Whatever you think we are arguing about and you are contributing to specifically, we aren't.
What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake