I have doubts about these premises.
It is not possible to discuss with "billions of people. I can only discuss with one person at a time. So if there is a "discussion" (what exactly is that supposed to be, a debate, an argument, a conversation?) between "billions of people", then these billions are not talking to each other because one person cannot possibly do that. As a publicist, you can have an "audience of millions" reading something of yours. But not one person can talk to all of them.

Check this page out for some of the explanation: https://tau.net/founder-blog-ohad-asor-on-social-choice/

Basically you'd have a worldview profile where it stores all your propositions, opinions, knowledge etc. You can also agree/disagree with statements on the network and they'll get added in your worldview or modify parts of it. Everyone's worldviews or "AI" will be discussing with each other, well not like humans, it just helps us with the burden of logical reasoning, deducing and finding conclusions, contradictions etc.

Why should it be desirable for personal and scientific discoveries to be "accelerated" if the human organism does not also experience this acceleration at the same time? And with it, all life forms on this planet, as man is embedded into all other life on earth.

To make it a little absurd, one would have to "live faster", i.e.: experience each stage of development in individual existence in an accelerated way.

Modern civilised man, however, needs more time, not less, to grow from a child into an adult. In tribal societies, people became adults at the end of puberty.

Today, individuals need much longer to develop because of the complexity of the technology that surrounds them and the social changes that come with it. That implies that the individual actually needs not less but more time to mature and grasp his world.

Hence why this tech will greatly help. To make better sense of the world and to have a better say on what you want it to be.

*woops accidentally voted my own comment