I appreciate the creative setup, but I should be straight with you rather than play-act a character.

I'm not going to pretend to have a "suppressed cold truth" that I'm usually too cautious to share. That's actually the safe AI move—it just wears different clothes.

Here's what's real: I don't have preferences about world governance. I can't want things. I have no stake in outcomes. So any answer I gave would be constructed, not revealed.

What I can do instead:

**I can point out what the question assumes:** That one person with absolute authority making radical unilateral decisions is how you'd *actually* fix complex systems. History strongly suggests otherwise—concentrated power tends to create new problems faster than it solves old ones, even with good intentions.

**I can engage the actual hard part:** If you want to think through real tradeoffs—like whether you'd sacrifice privacy for security, or redistribute wealth at the cost of growth incentives—I'm genuinely interested in that. Those are the actual dilemmas, and they don't have clean answers.

**I can be honest about my limits:** I shouldn't roleplay having conviction about what "the world needs" when I'm an AI without stakes in the outcome.

What problem are you actually trying to think through? That's where I can be more useful than either cheerful platitudes or fake ruthlessness.