I don't understand why this comment is downvoted. These are features of central planning of the entire economy that are not going to go away just because the planners have better computers that can do fancier math with strong artificial intelligence. The article even explicitly discusses some of these problems, which is why it's TL;DR is merely "maybe" and not "LET'S DO IT!"
Those of you who are enamored with the idea that it's all going to play out differently just because you can give everybody smartphones should at least acknowledge that you're advocating for a system that has devolved to unpleasant tyranny every time that it has been tried, and at least attempt to explain how the technology you're love is going to make those problems go away.
I think my coarser language might have prompted the downvotes, but I didn't see another way to get the point across. It's really hard to explain how it works to people who haven't lived it themselves. A lot of people are also entirely too optimistic about politicians doing what's good for the people without any checks and balances in place, and I don't mean just people here or there, this seems universal.
Also, in fact, lots of people liked central planning. Yes, you didn't have a choice, but you had a completely guaranteed life. As long as you remained loyal to The Party and as long as enough raw resources were being mined, theoretically the entire supply chain was planned and guaranteed. You just had to do your part. UBI is talked a lot about these days and central planning is UBI on steroids. Sort of a Uniform Total Income scheme. Some people really like that idea - they just want a stable secure life. I'm sure you can think up of many more examples where people want their life to be guaranteed and are willing to give up choice for security, and they really are happy in that environment.
It almost kind of worked out in practice, if you didn't mind queuing up at 5am at the general store to be one of the first in, so you could grab one bag of milk (one allowed per family per day, bring your daily coupon if you want it), because we didn't actually manage to produce enough milk for everyone to have a bag of milk. Even though we actually have enough land and cows to do so. Because some higher ups are skimming part of the milk, because they want more than one bag per day. Sorry, I'm starting to go bitter again.
Even though I've seen the tail end of what central planning causes, I'm still up for UBI, actually. Social programs are needed for a healthy society, it's just that anything taken to extremes usually ends up badly. Mostly because you can't take it to the extreme without the use of total power. This can be the central argument against many such extremes: "If your idea requires or results in a person or group of people wielding total power over the rest of the population, then it will inevitably end up in a form of serfdom/slavery".
Years after communism ended a colleague of my mother's travelled to Spain (IIRC) wanting to see how oppressed the people in a capitalist country are. Before he left, he still believed in the central ideas of communism and central planning. After he came back he pretty much said "Fuck central planning, we didn't lose because the dirty capitalists fought us, we lost because our shit doesn't fucking work".
Those of you who are enamored with the idea that it's all going to play out differently just because you can give everybody smartphones should at least acknowledge that you're advocating for a system that has devolved to unpleasant tyranny every time that it has been tried, and at least attempt to explain how the technology you're love is going to make those problems go away.