I don't find this convincing.

“Human intelligence” is often compared to “chimpanzee intelligence” in a manner that presents the former as being so much more awesome than, and different from, the latter. Yet this is not the case. If we look at individuals in isolation, a human is hardly that much more capable than a chimpanzee.

I think the same argument has been made by Hanson, and it doesn't seem to be true. Humans seem significantly superior based on the fact that they are capable of learning language. There is afaik no recorded instance of a chimpanzee doing that. The quote accurately points out that there are lots of things which an individual human or a tribe can't do that a chimpanzee can't do either, but it ignores the fact that there are also things which a human can in fact do and a chimpanzee can't. Moreover, even if it was true that a human brain isn't that much more awesome than a chimpanzee's, that doesn't imply that an AI can't be much more awesome than a human brain.

The remainder of the article argues that human capability is really based on a lot of implicit skills that aren't written down anywhere. I don't think this argument holds. If an AI is capable of reading much more quickly than humans, then it should also be able of watching video footage much more quickly than humans (if not by the same factor), and if it has access to the Internet, then I don't see why it shouldn't be able to learn how to turn the right knobs and handles on an oil rig and how to read the faces of humans – or literally anything else.

Am I missing something here?