>3. That human intelligence is in some way "universal". I don't understand this argument enough to explain the parody. Can someone else chime in? From what I u

>3. That human intelligence is in some way "universal". I don't understand this argument enough to explain the parody. Can someone else chime in? From what I understand it's basically how using tools to solve a problem is still considered 'intelligent', so to measure intelligence you should consider what problems you can solve, not how. In particular creating a device to solve a problem would still count as solving the problem. Hence if humans can create it, it can't be more intelligent than humans. The argument does make more sense for intelligence. Even if you don't agree with identifying 'problem solving skill' with 'intelligence' you still have the paradox that it is seemingly impossible to create something that can solve more problems than its creator.