Coercion at the scale of a family is possible too. However, it is much more manageable for the individual getting coerced. By manageable, I mean they can extricate themselves from the situation with greater ease when conditions become no longer voluntary.

The chances that one person can make wise financial decisions for a family are higher because they get influenced by the needs and desires of their family, and the problems are much fewer. The proverbial squeaky wheel will get the grease if it's deemed wise by the head of the house, and that's because they love and care about their family.

Whereas on the scale of the state, the problems are innumerable and not calculatable. GPT-3 may try to address the knowledge problem. Although I don't think it has enough heart to do so skillfully, deftly, or adeptly enough that almost everyone wouldn't resist its implementation. When said resistance occurs, that becomes a problem for the GPT-3 to fix.

Most of the failed communist models come in with good intentions. So a new system gets implemented under the guise that if the government had control of all the resources and means of production, they'd have enough money to solve all of the problems. However, it's the nature of bureaucracies and governments to be wasteful, inefficient, and cause even more problems.

And this is what happens, but once the course gets set, it's infinitely harder to turn it back around if it wasn't a good idea. I realize that at certain levels, all countries incorporate different levels of social programs. However, this is different from the government owning the means of production and the end of property ownership.

When you try to get rid of money and impose a distribution model of goods and services, that is essentially an attempt of the government to replace the marketplace. Markets and prices are complex organisms that grow from the ground up, and they cannot easily get replaced without conveying immense human suffering and waste of resources.