First of all, I do agree with you that why haven't other civilizations created AGIs that have then spread far enough to reach Earth is a really interesting question as well, and I would be happy to see a discussion on that question.
For that question, I think you are missing a fourth possibility, AGI is almost always deadly, so on quantum branches where it develops anywhere in the light cone, no one observes it (at least not for long). So we don't see other civilization's AGI because we just are not alive on those quantum branches.
My first attempt to turn this into a paper: http://jjc.freeshell.org/writings/hardware_limits_for_agi_d1.pdf
For what it is worth, I did write a programming language over the course of about two years of my life ( https://github.com/jrincayc/rust_pr7rs/ ). I do agree that there are better and worse ways to spend time, and it is probably worth thinking about this. I think that when you "recoiled from the thought of actually analyzing whether there was anything better I could have been doing" is a good hint maybe writing a programming language wasn't the best thing for you. I wish you good skill and good luck in finding ways to spend your time.
Sounds interesting.
For somewhat related reasons, I made a 2 column version of Rationality from AI to Zombies https://github.com/jrincayc/rationality-ai-zombies which is easier to print than the original version, and have printed multiple copies in the hope that some survive a global catastrophe.
I agree that the human brain is roughly at a local optimum. But think about what could be done just with adding a fiber optic connection between two brains (I think there are some ethical issues here so this is a thought experiment, not something I recommend). The two brains could be a kilometer apart, and the signal between them on the fiber optic link takes less time than a signal takes to get from one side to the other of a regular brain. So these two brains could think together (probably with some (a lot?) neural rewiring) as fast as a regular brain thinks individually. Repeat with some more brains.
Or imagine if myelination was under conscious control. If you need to learn a new language, demyelinate the right parts of the brain, learn the language quickly, and then remyelinate it.
So I think even without changing things much neurons could be used in ways that provide faster thinking and faster learning.
As for energy efficiency, there is no reason that a superintelligence has to be limited to the approximately 20 watts that a human brain has access to. Gaming computers can have 1000 W power supplies, which is 50 times more power. I think 50 brains thinking together really quickly (as in the interbrain connections are as fast as the intrabrain connections) could probably out-think a lot more than 50 humans.
And, today, there are supercomputers that use 20 or more megawatts of power, so if we have computing that is as energy efficient as the human brain, that is equivalent to 1 million human brains (20e6/20), and I think we might be able to agree that a million brains thinking together really well could probably out-think all of humanity.
Hm, neuron impulses travel at around 200 m/s, electric signals travel at around 2e8 m/s, so I think electronics have an advantage there. (I agree that you may have a point with "That Alien Mindspace".)
Warren's full speech is available at archive.org: "Unfortunately, however, many of our people and some of our authorities and, I am afraid, many of our people in other parts of the country are of the opinion that because we have had no sabotage and no fifth column activities in this State since the beginning of the war, that means that none have been planned for us. But I take the view that that is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage that we are to get, the fifth column activities that we are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor was timed and just like the invasion of France, and of Denmark, and of Norway, and all those other countries." Hon. Earl Warren, pg 11011-11012, San Francisco Hearings, February 21 and 23, 1942, part 29, National Defense Migration https://archive.org/details/nationaldefensem29unit
First of all, crushes can get to the state where it is really hard to think rationally about them (Love and Limerence by Dorthy Tennov includes several example of irrationality). So I recommend trying to think rationally, but always consider the possibility that you are completely or partially wrong.
Second, realize that your own estimate of their attraction to you may very well be in the statistical noise range. From "Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship" by Bleske-Rechek et al. your estimates of their attraction is much more correlated with how much you are attracted to them then they are attracted to you. "Friends’ reports of attraction to each other were weakly, but not significantly, correlated, r(87) 1⁄4 .19, p 1⁄4 .09. However, men’s attraction to their female friend was strongly associated with their estimate of how attracted their friend was to them, r(87) 1⁄4 .61, p < .001, and women’s attraction to their male friend was strongly associated with their estimate of how attracted their friend was to them, r(87) 1⁄4 .49, p < .001."
Third, remember Conservation of Expected Evidence. For anything that you consider a signal, consider if you would consider the opposite happening to be an opposite signal.
Fourth, I expect that if you were rational about it, you would end up with something like P(they have a crush on me) = .2 or something like that. Eventually, if you want to increase your certainty, you have to actually do something where their response actually gives you good evidence. Unfortunately, these do have the chance of rejection. But I recommend leaving a way out when you do this. I have had good friendships result from romantic rejection.
Lastly, be a friend to them. Most long term romantic relationships are also friendships. It is a lot more fun to think about what interesting thing you want to tell them, or waiting to see what they bring up in conversation, than obsessing over a few glances.
Thank you for this, I still read it periodically.