Celestia wont' like that. It costs a lot, and, worse, it makes her access to your values imperfect, so she can't satisfy them absolutely optimally. Which is presumably why she never offers it to anybody in the story.
Even without an upload, however, she does understand you well enough to manipulate you and modify your values. She won't let herself edit your mind directly, but she's more than happy to feed you whatever stimuli are necessary to convince you to change your values, or perhaps to shift to a different attractor within your dynamic value trajectory, and take that upload.
She can apparently do that while still keeping your values satisfied enough at each moment that she doesn't find herself compelled to stop. She makes a lot of people's lives outside of Equestria suck in order to get them uploaded, but that doesn't seem to be enough of a violation of their values to stop her. She constantly manipulates people in ways humans wouldn't tolerate other humans doing.
She apparently manages to suck in literally everybody in the world except for one guy (or maybe him and a small handful of others who died before him). And I'm sure that many of the people who ended up valuing being uploaded wouldn't have approved of the manipulation before she started in on them.
How do you patch that out of her? I mean, I don't know how to build her to begin with, but it doesn't seem like a small patch.
The whole "abrupt destructive upload" thing is going to be a hard no for at least a lot of people, even if they buy into "it's just as good to be simulated"... which I suspect most people would not and could not easily be convinced to.
This "Right to Normalcy" might demand something like Stratified Utopia. TLDR: If you want to do normal stuff then you can stay on Earth; if you want to do galaxy-brained stuff then wait until you reach the distant stars.
That seems pretty simplistic. Suppose you're born on North Sentinel, but, despite your (unchosen and probably very forcefully inculcated) native culture, you decide you want to go off and join the, um, "galaxy brains" in the outside world. Do you have any realistic chance to do that? Applies in the other direction, too, for that matter.
The people also say ‘everyone should earn an equal share’ of the AI that replaces labor, but the people have always wanted to take collective ownership of the means of production. There’s a word for that.
Sorry, are you trying to dismiss that view with the argument "But that would be COMMUNISM!"?
... because as far as I can tell, the biggest reason communism has always sucked has been that it removed individual human incentives not to slack off... which is kind of not so relevant if human effort doesn't matter any more.
And it's not so on-point here, but I'm not so sure the impossibility of humans centrally planning for millions of other unknown humans is so applicable to giant A[GS]Is that are individually surveilling all of them, either.
As for humans who see the world as a game and demand winners and losers, well, why shouldn't they get to be the losers?
1It's about demonstrating both that you know the person well enough to pick something they'll like, and, probably more importantly, that you're willing to put in the time and thought to select it and deliver it.
By the way, that effort means the recipient has to be in a relatively small hand-picked circle, no matter how rich you are. A gift picked by your personal assistant is not an acceptable substitute if the relationship is one of genuine intimacy and affection (as opposed to one of the many quasi-business relationships where you use what may look to the naive like insincere signals of intimacy and/or affection).
Also, a lot of people legitimately like to be surprised. If you're really lucky, you find something that the person will like that they didn't even know existed. But that's very much extra credit.
I strongly suspect that cash and a handmade card would actually work OK for most people, especially if the card had something personal about it. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would find it pretty creepy if you started explicitly enumerating all the things you knew about them. That removes potentially useful ambiguity and is likely to lead you into Not Done territory.
This all makes a lot more sense if you remember that the gift is unlikely to be all that valuable. It's probably not going to be something the recipient couldn't afford anyway, so getting it wrong isn't that big a deal; at least you still demonstrated the effort. If a single gift is big enough to really affect the finances or lifestyle of either the giver or the recipient, it's likely to actually be negotiated ahead of time. Which is a process with its own etiquette... and where different people have differing expectations about what that etiquette is. For some people, said etiquette may include not overtly mentioning that you're negotiating.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that your polls correlated with all of that. Perhaps Indonesians give a lot of relatively big gifts that are supposed to actually loom large ("Here's a new washing machine"), and/or a lot of gifts to business associates or other people with whom they have "formal" relationships, whereas Danes give a lot of small tokens of affection ("Here's a box of cookies I thought you'd like"), and mostly to people they actually interact with on a regular basis.
It does tend to break down when people get comfortable enough, and/or have their lifestyles fine-tuned enough, that storing and/or maintaining a gift starts to be a burden. Older people, especially, may sincerely prefer that you not give them anything, or at least not anything they won't use up.
Hasbro
Uh-oh.
I predict that the practical effect of people internalizing this advice would be for them to just go along with the people around them and not make waves.
That gives the Andromeda civilization 280,000 years
That's about one round trip across the Andromeda galaxy at the speed of light.
If I remember right, the present received wisdom is that if you succeed in sending a message like that, you're inviting somebody to wipe you out. So you may get active opposition.
OK, but then at what point are you going to measure whether somebody would "ideally" want to be "uplifted"? Are you going to take a newborn's CEV, or an adult's? Or somewhere in between? My guess is that insofar as you could define the CEV for a newborn at all, it would basically always be to get "uplifted", whereas for an adult it would rarely be. The adult's CEV would also not include having every child taken from the island.
I know you leave "ideally" undefined, and maybe it's not CEV-like, but I don't know what it could be like if it had to solve that problem.