There is no objective definition of intelligence or way of measuring it and if we try to construct too complicated a definition, it may take the analysis off into the weeds or down a rabbit hole where anything can be argued regardless how ridiculous. So for this analysis let’s define it as abstractly yet functionally as possible.
definition: intelligence – a relative measure of being.
definition: higher level of intelligence – existing with greater relative intelligence.
definition: lower level of intelligence – existing with some proportion of a relatively higher level of intelligence that’s proportionally less than 1.
One of life’s greatest mysteries is that humans (H) don’t know, can’t explain, can’t figure out where they came from but they came from somewhere whether it be the universe, mother nature, a god, PFM etc. Regardless the source, let’s call it a prime mover (G), humans aren’t capable of understanding the prime mover although they obviously have an origin. Therefore, it’s intuitively reasonable to assume:
assumption 0: G exists at a higher level of intelligence than H or else H would be able to understand G.
From this we have:
premise 0: The prime mover G created humans H.
premise 1: G created H at a lower level of intelligence proportionate to its own 0 > p < 1 where p is the constant of proportionality.
We programmed AI to do everything it can do but we didn’t program it to do everything we can do, it represents a proportion of our intelligence that is proportionally less than 1.
From this we have:
premise 3: H created AI.
premise 4: H created AI at a lower level of intelligence proportionate to its own its own 0 > q < 1 where q is the constant of proportionality.
From these:
G > H > AI => G is at a higher level of intelligence and created H which is at a higher level of intelligence and created AI.
Q: Can AI ever logically be at a higher level of intelligence than H, that is to say AI > H?
AI > H implies that AI created H which violates premise 3.
Q: Can AI ever logically be at the same level of intelligence as H, that is to say H = AI?
H is a function of G; pG and AI is a function of H; qpG => G > pG > qpG.
The only way for AI to be as intelligent as H, H = AI, is if q = 1 => pG = pG meaning that AI has an intelligence level equally proportionate to H as created by the prime mover but the prime mover didn’t create AI, premise 3 says H created AI. This means that H would have to have the same intelligence level as G, constant of proportionality p = 1, to create AI with the same proportional intelligence level to G as itself. If that were the case, humans would be at the same intelligence level as the prime mover and would be able to understand the prime mover and explain where they came from and it would contradict assumption 0 and violate premise 1.