Bitcoin doesn't need AI and is independent of AI. AI can take part in discussing Bitcoin (like people using ChatGPT on this forum), in framing Bitcoin in the media (because some news outlets use AI), in the reputation of Bitcoin (via AI-powered recommendation algorithms). All that, I think, is realistic. But that's not directly related to Bitcoin and how it works.
I think AI will have a huge impact on our lives, but its interaction with Bitcoin will actually be minimal.

It's truly painful to see how much the fees rise sometimes. I agree that it's a major issue, that it's a challenge. My only solace is that I don't think the problem is getting worse or that there won't be any low fees in the future. It's not over $100 any more, but it's still over $25 for any kind of priority, according to mempool.space. For now, we can just try to wait it out and/or use the bits we have on some centralized platforms. It's great if ultimately we see some sort of patch (soft fork) that can improve the situation.

Halving is just the end of a cycle and the start of a new one. Yes, the reward is reduced by half, but it's not the first halving and there's no surprise that this is how Bitcoin works. So, as such, I think it doesn't have any direct impact on attracting or scaring off investors. But Bitcoin does get some media attention due to halving, and attention is generally good to remind potential investors that Bitcoin exists.
There's no reason for a number of new investors to decrease, as halving makes Bitcoin more scarce, which is in principle good for investments.

Game 1:  26, 22'
Game 2:  26, 27'

There are monitoring platforms that try to assess if BTC is alright or tainted, and some websites can ask for additional documentation based on the fact that some BTC was flagged somewhere as tainted. Some also have policies like not accepting Bitcoin that was mixed (using a mixer).
Such policies do raise the question of fungibility of Bitcoin. I think Bitcoin is fungible, and that we shouldn't care about the notion of tainted coins. What authorities should care about is tracking money that is currently under control of criminals, but once the money is seized and released back via auctioning or exchanges, that shouldn't matter.

Honestly, determining the end of a bull run is much easier in hindsight, when the price is low for a while. For now, we can try to zoom out and look at, say, the price over a year. In that case, Bitcoin still looks very strong, close to the top.
We can also look at how much the price is below ATH. It's currently 12% below, which isn't that much, to be honest, as the price during the bear market is normally around 50+% below ATH. So I think it's still a bull market, maybe just a temporary point of stagnation that will seem insignificant in hindsight.

Javier Milei has a pretty radical libertarian stance even for Argentina, and we're talking about a country that's been suffering from hyperinflation for decades. In cases of complete mismanagement, abandoning central banks and adopting someone else's currency or even a decentralized currency might be worth the risk. But I think that doesn't apply to most of the world, where fiat isn't always doing great, but there is some sort of stability and policies generally work. In those cases, I don't think getting rid of central banks would be a popular or appealing idea. Aside from stability and familiarity, national fiat can also be a part of national pride, and central banks are needed for that.

I don't use on-chain Bitcoin for small transactions, considering the fees. Come to think of it, when fees are above $10, I try not to use on-chain Bitcoin at all. But that doesn't mean I fully stop using it, as I do have small amounts on centralized platforms (for gambling and betting on sports). Since money's already there, small transactions are possible there without any fees, and Bitcoin can still be useful. I know it's different and that it's not a solution, but it also means not stopping using Bitcoin for small transactions completely.

I agree that there are better and worse times to invest in Bitcoin, and that there seem to be some sort of cycles here. But with its long-term growth, I also think it's not necessary to get into details and time will set things right. For example, buying at $17k at the end of 2017 can be seen as a mistake, but if a person simply waited for 3.5 years, that's almost 4x profit right there. As for gold, it's growing much slower, so I think it's a good alternative to fiat for savings because fiat loses value over time, but not a very lucrative investment opportunity.

I think I've heard about some athletes requesting bonus payments in Bitcoin before. For example, there was a case in 2019 with Russell Okung tweeting about wanting to be paid in Bitcoin and becoming the first NFL player to be paid in Bitcoin in 2020. There's also an article on Medium (with relevant sources) about athletes getting paid in Bitcoin.
So it's certainly not the first case, but any such case is a nice little advertisement for Bitcoin.

If we're looking at 5 years, then I agree that in many countries, including mine, things are getting worse. Salaries are higher in local fiat, of course, but the purchasing power is lower than it used to be, so to improve your life, you need to be in active career growth to outrun these changes.
That being said, I'm not sure if it's a global trend, because in my country it has regional causes that aren't relevant elsewhere. I tend to agree with Charles-Tim that objectively, the global economy isn't on decline.

Some of the crucial traits of social networks are allowing to communicate, share information, connect, form relationships. If we use the term social media, we're focusing on sharing information and ideas on a platform.
Bitcoin isn't built in such a way. We don't normally use Bitcoin to share texts or photos, we can't befriend people on blockchain, and we're not really communicating with Bitcoin. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but I'm saying that it's not what it's for, and it's not something easy to do.
One could argue that Bitcointalk as a forum has traits of social networking, but that's a very different matter.

I agree with the op that a very high amount of BTC in the hands of short-term holders is a positive thing for BTC price. Some might worry that it's a bad sign because if people aren't hodling long-term, they can as easily sell their BTC as they bought it and drive the price down. But, actually, short-term holding means that there's high liquidity, and that people are willing to exchange BTC. Because hodling is good for hodlers, but not good for a currency itself, as low liquidity would make the price artificial.

The scarcity of Bitcoin is actually more reliable than that of precious metals. For one, some of such metals can be available in great number in space, but it's too early to worry about that. The thing is, they might be abundant on Earth as well, as what we have are only estimates, and we haven't fully explored our planet to assert that we know the supply of gold, for example.
I agree that Bitcoin is the most reputable cryptocurrency, and that it's currently the greatest cryptocurrency. I think it will remain #1 by market capitalization for, say, another decade, but I'm not sure about forever, as we can't predict what kind of changes might happen.

Well, actually, halving countdown shows that halving is more than 24 hours away. The op's link indeed doesn't work, and Nicehash link, provided by Poker Player, says that halving is in 1 day and 23 hours. Another website says it's 1 day and 16 hours away, so the estimates vary. If it's op's first halving, it can be pretty exciting. As for me, it's my third one, I believe, so it's just the end of a cycle and a start of a new one. It won't have any direct impact on the price, nothing magical will happen around April 20. Perhaps we should actually think of making halving a Bitcoin holiday, sort of like people celebrate the New Year, but for now, that's not the case.

I'm going to assume it's a financial hypothetical because I don't think I believe it's a real story. I watched a video about teen millionaires just yesterday, and they seemed to be intelligent, nice people. Then again, those were people who built their own businesses, and this story is about inheritance, which should be taken into account.
I think that a good idea is to buy a nice flat to start living independently. A part of money should be put on a deposit account at a reputable bank to earn interest rate (which actually makes sense when the amount of money is big). I believe that it's also good to invest in good education, good in a sense that it'll give some soft skills and maybe hard skills that are in something the person's actually interested in. Finally, giving back to the community is a good idea. It's both good for other people, and for the giver because research proves that people actually feel happy when they help others. It can be done via donating a part of money to a cause, or establishing a socially responsible project, a charity, a scholarship fund etc.

I don't understand why the op's talking about BRICS being established, using future tense. BRIC was created in 2009 in Russia, and then became BRICS the following year when South Africa joined the organization. It's a big alliance if we look at the percentage of population and global GDP of it, but I don't think it's an effective alliance, mainly because of different political goals and different relations each of the members have with the rest of the world (especially with Western countries).
As we can see, dedollarization isn't actually happening, so if that's their common goal, they're failing.

I don't have any specific regrets, but I admit that I've made some mistakes. One was keeping some Ethereum in a custodial wallet that was very popular at that time but performed an exit scam (or was actually hacked, hard to say). I got my 40% reimbursement in the early days after the incident and still made decent profit out of it (because I bought that Ethereum for under $20), but it was an unfortunate situation. Another was with Bitcoin, and I had around $900 worth of BTC in 2017 when the price was over $15k. But the fees were very high (around $20), so I didn't sell at that point. I eventually sold it all (because I needed to) at a loss, for around half the price during the bear market.
What's important is to learn from mistakes, instead of focusing on regret.

Financial institutions and meme coin advocates taking over is just an opinion, and it's not even supported by any evidence by the op, which is unfortunate. Which financial institutions are we talking about? Is it about the ETFs? They exist now, but that doesn't exclude Bitcoin in its pure decentralized form. As for meme coins, I've honestly not heard people defending them or talking seriously about them for a while.
Bitcoin is still digital cash, or at least it's still a part of what Bitcoin is. Sure, sometimes it's a more viable option and sometimes less, but overall, it still works as intended.

Some fiat currencies are struggling, and some are basically failed projects. However, there are a handful of currencies that are doing okay, with inflation at reasonable level and good reputation as reliable currencies. So I think it's premature to consider fiat currencies obsolete while nearly the whole global economy still relies on them.
Bitcoin is volatile, and Bitcoin transaction fees are volatile as well. Unless you go with a centralized solution, you can't just use sats to counteract Bitcoin's issues. After all, sats are parts of Bitcoin, and if an average transaction fee at some point is $10, it's $10 in both BTC and in sats.