The problem with GPT in general is it lacks any understanding of what its saying. It sounds plausible if you don't have the background, simply because its been trained on a vast corpus of material. It hallucinates (lies) too.

When you talk about decentralized decisions, its all fine to generalize that, but what does that actually mean. It means different things to different people in a very complex unmapped system. Simply doing what it says ignores a great number of outcomes, and will fail when being adopted in any highly concentrated business sector. Failure can mean a lot of things, but when dealing with existential issues, it means death because that is what's on the line.

UBI will also fail, because you don't know what you need to do until the time to make that decision has already come to pass. Liquidity freezes up if theres too little currency, and inflation runs rampant if there's too much. That's the nature of a lagging indicator.

There are also further deviations that are unpredictable, and they end in shortages (i.e. a traffic accident causes a shipment to be lost).

Shortages of electronics not a big deal. A 1-month shortage of food will wipe out most countries. People don't sit by and starve.

Technological advancements (aka using computers) will never be able to correctly identify different outputs from the same inputs. Its called the decidability problem. Computers rely upon problems having deterministic answers (fundamental computation, and automata theory). You can approximate some signals with non-determinism but you run into a whole host of other problems (i.e. halting).

Sustainability and resilience mean different things to different people. Same problem as the last point.