Raw LLM Responses

I sorted through my problems with this proposal at work the other day and have only just now made it to a computer, but felt obligated to post anyway in case anyone still cares about this question, as it was clearly thought-provoking to many. First, the assumption that a medical condition occurs in an individual in a way that is truly independent of the choices that individual makes is unrealistic for many if not the vast majority of conditions. Further, even if an individual suffers a condition irrespective of choices, that condition will likely be tied to the overall nature of that individual's health in both known and unknown ways. Second, the tradeoff between an unexpected effect which is at least partially following from an individual's persistent personal state to an unexpected effect based on a computer algorithm's generation of something humanly unexpectable is philosophically unweightable. The suffering of our own problems and the consequences of our choices is an inherently different experience from the suffering of choices which are much closer to being truly unexpectable (a lottery number). Third, for me and many, there is an inherent sense of justice in suffering for who you are that is lost when suffering for a combination of a dice roll and who someone else is. Generally, the exchange is more emotionally complicated than one death for two deaths, and the assumption that it somehow wouldn't be is unrealistic. The assumption that the complexities can be objectively weighted in a way that has broad appeal adds unknowable additional life cost to the implementation of the program, even if we accept that it is hypothetically possible to factor dissimilar perspectives and health states into the algorithm comprehensively (a highly debatable assumption, to put it mildly). Life lived and planned in the absence of emotional context becomes objectively valueless and therefore, objectively speaking, we should not live or plan in the absence of emotional cont