Selection pressure might be even weaker a lot of the time than a 3% fitness advantage having a 6% chance of becoming universal in the gene pool, or at least it's more complicated-- a lot of changes don't offer a stable advantage over long periods.

I think natural selection and human intelligence at this point can't really be compared for strength. Each is doing things that the other can't-- afaik, we don't know how to deliberately create organisms which can outcompete their wild conspecifics. (Or is it just that there's no reason to try and/or we have too much sense to do the experiments?)

And we certainly don't know how to deliberately design a creature which could thrive in the wild, though some animals which have been selectively bred for human purposes do well as ferals.

This point may be a nitpick since it doesn't address how far human intelligence can go.

Another example of attribution error: Why would Gimli think that Galadriel is beautiful?

Eliezer made a very interesting claim-- that current hardware is sufficient for AI. Details?