Yes.

Kind of a half gain: smoothness improved, latency same or slightly worse.

By the way, I thought these AI things served to increase resolution, not frame rate. Why doesn't it work that way?

This is factually incorrect and I don't know where people get this idea from.

Just moving my mouse around, I can tell the difference between 60 and 144 fps when I move my pointer from my main monitor (144 hz) to my second monitor (60 hz).

Watching text scroll is noticeably smoother and with less eye tracking motion blur at 144 hz versus 60.

An object moving across my screen at 144 fps will travel fewer pixels per frame than 60 fps. This gain in motion fluidity is noticeable.

Can definitely see more than 60, but it varies how much more you can see. For me it seems like diminishing returns beyond 144Hz.

Though some CRT emulation techniques require more than that to scale realistic 'flickering' effects.

The human eyes are analog low pass filters, so beyond 60Hz is when things start to blur together, which is still desirable since that's what we see in real life. But there is a cutoff where even the blurring itself can no longer help increase fidelity. Also keep in mind that this benefit helps visuals even when the frame rate is beyond human response time.

This is laughably false and easy to disprove. Blurbusters did an analysis of this many years ago and we won't get "retina" refresh rates until we're at 1000Hz.

i can tell up to about 144Hz but struggle to really notice going from 144 to 240Hz. Even if you don't consciously notice the higher refresh rate it could still help for really fast paced games like competitive FPS if you can actually generate that many frames per second by reducing input latency and if you can actually respond fast enough.