I think there's likely to be a distinction here between "things that are learnable through computation" and things that aren't. A machine or algorithm that nee

I think there's likely to be a distinction here between "things that are learnable through computation" and things that aren't. A machine or algorithm that needed to evaluate various methods of planting seeds in soil, for instance, is going to be limited by hard time factors short of figuring out how to put in the "physics" of it from the current state of the art of human knowledge. And that pushes you up against the line of "tools that make it easy to interface with today and history's knowledge, art styles, etc" vs "generating new knowledge." The singularity would require the latter - there's a lot of talk around embodiment as a potential necessity there, but I think there's a certain difference too around experimentation and feedback. A perfect simulation of the universe would let you get around some of this - especially if you assume perfect or good-enough simulation of human behavior - but that's a LOT of compute. This gap between "what a human can do, but faster/cheaper/without getting tired" and "what a human couldn't even imagine" that is the "AI" dream (sometimes nightmare) that sci-fi planted in our heads.