I agree with his proposition that there is no linear "better or worse" That being said there is no evidence that an AI that is fundamentally different (and pot

I agree with his proposition that there is no linear "better or worse" That being said there is no evidence that an AI that is fundamentally different (and potentially inferior) from humans could not be much more effective at controlling human behaviors, thoughts, viewpoints or actions. Furthermore it may be the case that an AI can sense or understand information we cannot simply because we do not have the "sensors" to understand such information. The actual "intelligence" does not need to be very high if the data is that much richer. From another perspective: the AI may not be as intelligent but may have more control over the environment than humans (e.g controlling the smart grid, traffic routing etc.) because of this its ability to influence human behavior is larger. Either of these two cases could be deemed as "greater intelligence" ... just intelligence of a different kind. We need to look at intelligence less in terms of human constructs and more in terms of "ability to manipulate human behavior" -- this would be a human centric definition.