What contexts are we talking about?
I assume you are talking about networks where people don't meet face to face and debate something to come to a decision? What examples do you personally have in mind when you say that it is your worldview profile that makes for approving or disapproving statements, which would then result in some kind of election outcome when a certain proposal is up for debate? But the question is who makes the proposals in the first place, isn't it?

To take Hive as a model, there are two types of proposal-"entities"

• official submission of proposals via the infrastructure provided
• informal publications of certain opinion papers

(Let's take the question of whether the downvote button should be abolished, just as an example).
In your view, would the AI then be able to collect the results of those who actively and directly participate in a voting process, but also interpret the others who do not participate actively indirectly (through everything a person has ever posted publicly)? Since, for example, the AI would be able to link the voting topic to my content that, although not directly, is indirectly related to the voting question?

The "problem" with votes is that they (should) result in "yes" or "no", but what about answers like "not now", "unsure" or "un-decidable"? How does an AI arrive at such results, which in principle would also be possible? What about the debates on the relevance of a proposal that take place before a vote? Who says how relevant an issue is? Is it relevant just because many want to debate it? It could be irrelevant just like so many questions that sound important but are not (one of which would be "how the universe came to be?, from my point of view).

The problem with worldview is that it is not fixed in the individual and changes permanently. The other problem is that human beings do not really know themselves, but are changeable beings who permanently react to their environment and fellow human beings with contradictions. That's actually a huge one, contradictions and paradoxes.

If, for example, I were to look at my content and comments on Hive alone and an AI were to create a profile of me, I wouldn't know exactly what the result would be. But an AI is supposed to "know" that..., in other words, it would summarise the sum of my views (communication transmitted via text) in a clear profile... but could only do something with what I have ever said/written, while missing what I have never written down, but which is nevertheless present as a mental superstructure (without my ever being able to put it into words).
What if I come into conflict with the profile the AI has of me?

For example, I talked to an AI about a certain author and it gave me a summary of what he has written. I then told the chat bot that I think the summary was incorrect about what it emphasized which resulted in the AI apologizing and correcting itself. LOL

I would be happy if you debate with me, the references to the Tau page are unnecessary, I have already read a lot there, but want to talk to YOU ;)