schoen kicked this off nicely, I&#x27;ll add a couple points to amplify his.<p>1- Machine intelligence is a matter of engineering, not evolution. We&#x27;ve already solved important relevant problems, such as how to construct an arbitrarily large, near-infallible memory.<p>2- It&#x27;s hard to see how a first-stage AI would be incapable of designing a better one. Let&#x27;s pretend that the first-stage AI was equivalent to an IQ 120 person intellectually (reasoning horsepower). However, that IQ 120 intelligence would be backed up by a very fast, effectively limitless memory. It would never need to sleep, eat, or be distracted by emotion. Instead, it could monomaniacally concentrate on designing a better AI, possibly for hundreds of years. Also, in principle, it could be a team of 100 (or 1000, or...) 
AIs working on the problem cooperatively.<p>3- The concern regarding the extermination of humanity is secondary. Are humans out to genocide ants? Not really, but we do wipe them out when they pose a problem. That might apply to an IQ 1000 AI as well.<p>4- Perhaps the bigger problem is the effect of knowing there is a superior intelligence on the human psyche. Plus, it&#x27;s impossible for us to know the thoughts of an IQ 250+ AI. What does a dog know of human thought? What if the AI decides that the best use for all the available raw resources of the Earth is to create an IQ 10000 AI?<p>5- Electronic processes are already known to be faster than chemical ones. Nerve impulses travel at around 80 MPH. Electrons in wires travel at 90% the speed of light. I expect electronic AIs to generally be much faster thinkers than humans, and to have amazing reaction times.<p>6- &quot;This super-AI is actually a computer.&quot; You&#x27;re confusing the hardware with the software. Your brain is actually a mass of organic chemicals. So?<p>The idea of the singularity revolves around the unknowability of what a high-IQ AI would think and do.