I would chalk this up to we simply don't know each other as well as we think we do. We think we're good at interpreting facial expressions, body language and style choices until the rare instances where we can check our assumptions against what the observed person is actually thinking/feeling. Society and culture (context?) probably play a big part in our understanding or lack of understanding.

Part of what the question is asking is how do we know (decide?) the difference between performative and true existential threat.

Please tell me if I'm understanding this correctly. The main arguments are:

1. There are currently a lot of humans because we can do more things with more humans.
2. With advancing technology (specifically AI) we won't need more humans to do more things.

From these two arguments the assumption is that AI will have an incentive to keep human population numbers low or at zero. If my understanding to this point is correct, what do you believe humans now should do knowing these assumptions?

I don't agree that the ChatGPT list is less actionable, notice that all 6 scenarios listed are designed so that humans wouldn't be aware of what was happening while slowly ceding control.

For my own students (I'm getting certified to teach high school business courses) I recommend Sophia learning (https://www.sophia.org/) to get a head start on gen ed college courses.

I can imagine that building as a solution to low fertility could pick up steam in the coming years in terms of rhetoric but all the same barriers will likely still be in place (NIMBYism, lobbying by landlords, status quo bias etc.)

• Money.
• Insecurity about money.
• Not being able to afford kids or the house to raise them in.

My gut reaction is that these are more perceptions than real obstacles. There's a strong perception that there's a certain dollar amount or level of wealth before one should have children. Somehow changing the perception first would probably help fertility more than simply paying per child.