The ontological argument is a priori reasoning while most intelligence explosion arguments use a posteriori reasoning. An a priori intelligence explosion argum

The ontological argument is a priori reasoning while most intelligence explosion arguments use a posteriori reasoning. An a priori intelligence explosion argument would be limited to something like "the universe is likely infinite and varied, so somewhere within its history is a superintelligent machine". The trends suggest increasing machine intelligence and barring worldwide catastrophe I expect this to keep happening until the threshold of superhuman intelligence is crossed. Any argument against superintelligence is an argument against the current economic, political, and technological status quo since there are no strong arguments for why human intelligence is a universal limit. The IQ or intelligence boosting argument ignores the ability of machines to directly manipulate either its own or other machine's intelligence. Einstein and Newton couldn't directly alter their own or other's neural structures in any beneficial way (even as simple as adding more neurons), and it wasn't even their area of expertise. An artificial intelligence that is as smart as a human expert in artificial intelligence is far more likely to be able to create a more intelligent machine directly. The last argument that society or technology as a whole is where improvements occur is right in a sense. The system as a whole is what matters for the growth of intelligence and superintelligence, but within the system we care a lot about the place of humans. The trend is for humans to remain at roughly the same intelligence and for machine intelligence to surpass us (soon). The transition is worth getting right.