Who defines radical? Who decides the representatives? You're slow boating your way back to human governance of humans. Humans using AI as a tool to help them make decisions seems like a more useful approach than the addition of an extra step and piece of government to monitor (AI). What happens when the AI determines that the optimal situation is for it to have free agency without human involvement? And if it's wrong or radical in one area, why is it any more trustworthy in any other area? This just seems like a more complicated form of government to me with an even greater potential for abuse of rights. It seems a lot like having a government made up entirely of scientists and pragmatists. We'd end up right back at Hitler before long. Philosophy is important for 'optimizing' human life on earth, and having something like AI as it stands isn't going to necessarily appreciate that.