"Cold objectivity" sounds all good and well... but it will certainly go against human experiences (for better or for worse).
If President SuperComputer outright banned the Ergodox because it's inferior, you might well say that you still prefer it.
Of course, President SuperComputer would then know that you are a hindrance to progress and have you and all the Ergodoxes shipped out to sea.
This is the problem with discussions of this type, because you've got very different tolerances for what constitute objectivity and human experience.
I would say that despite inconsistencies, Humans are coldly objective..
You've got facebook, why , to meet females,why, pleasure of procreation, why, to procreate, why, to live
You've got mcdonolds, why, it's delicious, why, pleasure of eating, why, to live
So where you draw the line forms a difference in opinion, but you go back to further enough.. You get mostly the same result.
What a computer would do in this case, is reach these conclusions faster, while being able to incorporate opinions / facts/ and fiction from big data..
It's not a matter of reaching right or wrong, it's more about reaching good consensus on what's actually happening..
Whereas a human decision would always be very narrow and myopic