[zoogeny]

I think they are fair statements, but perhaps not saying what you think.

Plato covers a lot of this kind of thing and it is maybe useful to use his framework (since much of modern Catholicism has a healthy dose of Platonism). Both flowers and music can be called "beautiful" and there is some sense in which both partake in a universal "Beauty". Yet at the same time the nature of the beauty of flowers and music is distinct. This is a difficult paradox to contemplate.

And so it may be with Intelligence. There may be some Platonic form of Intelligence that both humans and AIs partake in, but there may be some aspect of the human manifestation of that form that will forever remain distinct to humans.

Of course, it is up to you how much you value the distinctness of that expression of the universal form. Catholic faith suggests that the particular distinctiveness of human expressions of these forms is "divine" in some sense. That is, it is our manifestation of the universal that is valuable, not the universal in and of itself.

[pixl97]

>but there may be some aspect of the human manifestation of that form that will forever remain distinct to humans.

Lets not forget the converse may be true for AI. Humans may be a very specialized form of intelligence (though we do like to consider ourselves general intelligences).

[zoogeny]

That is one implication. There is a sense in which the "beauty" that is particular with a rose shares more in common with a lily compared to the "beauty" either share with music. So it is the degree of particular-ness that is a matter of personal interpretation.

Imagine a science fiction future where we use AIs to enhance neuroscience to determine how to make Octopuses more intelligent, such that they reach LLM levels or near human levels of language. Is their brain not a neural network that could be optimized?

In our wildest dreams we might consider the breadth of intelligence possible and our particular relationship with respect to it. We might face questions that are harder to answer than we anticipate.

Perhaps considering the question is more important than deciding on an answer?