Well, I think a big reason why this happened is that there really was no objective way of deciding which industries should be prioritized. It just so happened that steel production seemed to be the industry that prioritizing would allow for the most future growth.
In a way, this was true for the USSR - the Red Army in WW2 was incredibly well equipped in numbers, which would have been impossible if they had not focused on so hard in steel production.
But in theory, if one could get such a system going, and if it could be implemented in a verifiable way, then there would be no way for the government to justify prioritizing one industry over the other. Indeed, how could you argue that you make a better job than the algorithm? If the government decided to incentivize further productive growth, that should be done via a hyperparameter.
I think the major politicking issue would be getting the politicians to willingly give up their power to this system, which indeed would be a huge problem.
In a way, this was true for the USSR - the Red Army in WW2 was incredibly well equipped in numbers, which would have been impossible if they had not focused on so hard in steel production.
But in theory, if one could get such a system going, and if it could be implemented in a verifiable way, then there would be no way for the government to justify prioritizing one industry over the other. Indeed, how could you argue that you make a better job than the algorithm? If the government decided to incentivize further productive growth, that should be done via a hyperparameter.
I think the major politicking issue would be getting the politicians to willingly give up their power to this system, which indeed would be a huge problem.