I appreciate your thoughtful reply. To be clear, the reference to “artificial human” was a nod to Legg and Hutter, as a statement of how the “intelligent design” and “evolution” camps differ in their thinking. I think you’ll find many people sympathetic to your perspective: that natural intelligence is a problem to be solved and that nature evolved the only solution.
Deutsch’s essay on the essence of creativity and the epistemological logjam illustrates another frame for identifying problems. He agrees with your position (we’re not “on the road to AGI”), but rooted in an epistemological, not biological, argument.
Similarly, to the point you’ve made elsewhere, natural intelligence rarely produces the type of intelligence we seek. And revolutionary knowledge creation is a human invention, not a natural phenomenon.
I’m persuaded that engineering efforts are made more effective as the goal is illuminated and the path narrowed. I find the goal of automated scientific discovery narrower than artificial general intelligence (and of comparable importance, for it’s promise to subsume other goals). But I think most would find more inspiration and promise in your perspective.