> Taking arguments seriously doesn't necessitate agreement.

I agree. That’s what I’m saying, so I don’t think I understand what you mean. Mind clarifying the point you’re making?

To try to clarify, what I do mean that is that disagreement does necessitate at least some measure of taking arguments seriously. Some arguments maybe don’t deserve to be taken seriously, but you need to first be open to taking them seriously so you can decide.

In other words, if you go into an argument with the initial mindset of taking it seriously, by the end you’ll be able to decide if it should be taken seriously or not; but if your initial mindset is to not take it seriously, most likely you won’t be open to understand the nuance of what is being said. Thus, the former leads to productive discussion while the latter does not.

Ah, I get it. Your emphasis is on the "cope" framing. You say that, but it didn't click for some reason. Don't mind me.

I suppose I have also interpreted downplaying of AI's impact as largely coping too.

The arrivals of machines that can outthink us (or will soon) only 80 years after the invention of the transistor is so clearly (to me) a change incomparable to anything that has happened prior. It is very hard to relate to arguments that downplay the complete upheaval to the order of life on Earth that non-biological cognition and interests herald.

It does not seem surprising to me, in the sense that we humans ourselves, and our technology, are of a different order than anything that came before. We have not stopped accelerating change. AI is (will soon be) building directly on that. But we will no longer be a bottleneck.

My strong impression, is the faster things change, the more people tune out that the change isn't stopping. Some of that reversal-response must involve coping. Perhaps another reason is that faster-than-us change is challenging to imagine.

But your point is valid. False or uncertain assumptions of "cope" motivations don't help anything.