Mabey but fair and functional mean different things to different people. Does this computer lock up or do away with the people who won't go along. Who decides what is fair and functional?
Why is mankind so obsessed with being ruled by a higher power?

I keep going to Asimov. The Laws of Robotics, which technically this could fall under. Machine learning has to start somewhere, and it will always be based on where it began: fallible human programming with an agenda. So - no and no. Who gets to define fair and functional, anyway?

No. Computers can only be as smart, empathetic, or wise as the people who created the computer.

Potentially, yes - but only if humans don't write the programs the computer runs. There's been much in the news recently about how software designed to be used in certain fields, for example law enforcement, tends to reflect the unconcious biases of the person/s who create it - such as software designed to pick out individuals in a crowd who display signs indicating they may possibly be engaged in anti-social or criminal behaviour being more likely to pick out black faces.

Depends on who programmed it. But it’s a bad idea.

I think a child could create a more fair/functioning society, but the "powers that be" would never allow it. People who want power don't give up any unless forced.

That is what happened at the end of sequential short stories in "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov.

It is a nice positive vision fohte future, but unlikely because mankind simply is nto that rational, and to my knowledge nobody is building Asimov's rules of robotics into artificial intelligence. Also, there is a great deal we do not know about ourselves, so how woudl we program machines to do what is best for us when we do not seem to know ourselves.?

Pretty sure, as a species, humans would not be happy being tasters in a pie factory, even if you paid them. (Translation: no matter how perfect the situation, someone is not gonna be happy)

Yes. Programming languages are impartial to race, beliefs, sexual orientation or other human characteristics.

No. Only people can do that, if they really want to.
Which it seems they do not.

Funtional yes. It already does in many manufacturing sectors. Fair no. Always going to be someone, some group, some government who will only consider fair based on theirs goals.

The quest for AI has produced some remarkarble achievements, however, computers are unable to make autonomous value judgments and are only as effective as the programs(s) that run them.

Fair and functional based on what criteria? A society where people function like robots?

Computers can only work with what information is fed into them by humans.

No there are too many things in life that require a gut feeling or empathy. Pure logic is not always the answer. Didn't you watch Star Trek?

Define "fair." Especially since "fair" and "functional" are frequently in opposition to each other.

Not enough information. Do you mean that have a computer program design society as in setting work rules, pay, and hours, access to medical care, etc.? The original post is way too ambiguous. However, assuming that is what was meant, no, the sturucture of the American society is very similar to that of a troop of baboons with its biggest male member dominating those below him and the high ranking males who support him garnering most of the benifits. There is no way that corporate America (A.K.A. the wealthy), are going to give up the power and privilege. Trump must have his gold apponted fixtures in his barthroom more than one of his contractor's employees needs health care.

Lets keep the computer off the question and focus on the "fair/functional society" part. How do we improve what we have in place?

My opinion is "yes" and "yes".

Fair and functional are two different concepts. AI's are all around us, and as my techie friends tell me, they are still fairly stupid when it comes to making judgement calls. Computers certainly make our society more efficient and functional, whether they will make it more 'fair' is an interesting question. More fair perhaps because of equal access to information and ease of communication creates a certain amount of equality. If society chooses to let computers and AI's crunch information and make recommendations (not judgement calls) I see only benefits.

The powers that be will always try to control the flow of power, which in this era is 'availability of information.' That is why there must be government oversights and watchdog groups that keep our officials accountable and transparent. People are naturally insecure, greedy and power hungry. Computers are not, yet the human brain is still capable of multiple functions with which to make judgement calls that computers cannot master yet. That emotional element we bring into our judgement calls are both a strength and a weakness. We need to learn to rely on computers and AI's for recommendations, but trust intuitions that computers do not have. They have only data, we have emotions to help guide us.

You realize people still program computers - right? If AI becomes sentient, eventually people are superflouous... But that's not going to happen for a while yet.

So no, and no.

Yes, certainly if programmed with the right parameters, but if done nicely it would be able to handle things like changes in weather, crop yielads and such to aid in distribution, planning for populations, crop planting. It could be amazing. Sadly
people would set it up corrupt.

I hope we don't have to live in a computer operated wolrd.

I don't think I want to live in a computer-generated society.

Not as long as spewing out the minutae of one's mind takes priority over any real discussion, wether it is politics, current events, etc. I find that forums and the like are great for sense of community, except for the occasional troll, the online friendships I have made are valuable to me. Arguments for both sides could be made. I like to think that as long as what I am doing now, replying online to someone who is doing the same as me, reaching out, passing along/gaining insight, the world might change for the better. Where else is it gonna happen?

Simple ... no

This has been explored many times in Science Fiction. From the Role Playing Game Paranoia to the Star Trek: TOS episodes Return of the Archons, The Apple, and For the World Is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky. In all these cases, the initial reasons that computers were put in control were ones of benevolence (or outright survival); and in each case, things ended up going wrong. In trying to substitute a computer, with all it's powers of calculations, for a God, with all the omniscience assigned to it from its believers, each of these societies failed.

Just as any 'God' doesn't see all in the hearts of men, a computer cannot truly run a society filled with humans, who experience much more in life than pure logic or calculation can ever explain.

So - in a nutshell, while a computer may initially be able to create rules and even enforce a more fair/functional society, it could never last. Eventually, human elements would either leech their way into the program, or the humanity of us, for good and for ill, would wither away.

And that is only the beginning of the argument against. There is also the question of enforcing laws. Would the computer condition each person (As in A Wrinkle in Time) to strictly adhear to the norm? Would those who were exceptional simply be destroyed (Twilight Zone, Examination Day, 1985)? Would the computer be able to tell the difference between what is legal vs what is Just? ('When laws are absolute, there is no justice!' - Star Trek: TNG 1987 - Justice).

I believe that it boils down to this: If we were a society capable of creating a computer system sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of humanity, for all its good, and its destructive potential, then we would no longer need any form of governance other than what was within each person.