There was a similar topic about technology impacting taxonomy, focusing purely on AI, though
I think, the difficulty with creating a good system is that different branches of biology may have different wants and needs for a system like that. Evolutionary biologists and geneticists might prefer a tree of life with finer nuances that better show processes like speciation, generic drift, etc. “in action”.
Field biologists such as conservationists and ecologists and probably educators as well might absolutely hate that because at some point it becomes impossible to identify anything without sequencing the DNA.
This comment by charlie describes the danger of AI in taxonomy pretty well and clearly, IMO
Nothing in this universe is ever perfect, so with such complex systems as lifeforms, there will never be a neat and concise system that accounts for every irregularity.
In my opinion, we should therefore allow separate areas of biology a bit of freedom with whatever they want to do to taxonomy to suit their needs, but that shouldn’t necessarily have to affect the way it’s used somewhere else. The Linnaean system should serve as a “backbone” with its more or less rigidly defined categories and should stay the same throughout biology (however, hopefully with more clear definitions for the different ranks at some point in the future). As for how to define the different ranks for an “optimal backbone”, I have neither the knowledge nor experience to say.