Proving their intelligence to who? Who would even care? How likely is it that any coordinated action would be taken to save starving orcas? If its highly likely, is this fact legible to them? 

It might seem to them that however many intelligent animals we've aided, we might just have harmed as many (intentionally or otherwise), or more.

Have humans ever taken large scale coordinated action to help an animal population that wasn't redressing some harm done to them by humans?

if I want to find the maxima of a function, it doesn't matter if I use conjugate gradient descent or Newton's method or interpolation methods or whatever, they will tend to find the same maxima assuming they are looking at the same function.

In general, those methods find local extrema. They don't tell you how many there are, or where the next closest point is once you've found one of them. A loss landscape might have several local minima. Which one you find depends on where you start. 

Why shouldn't there be different minds that are at comparable minimum values, but not very close on the loss landscape? 

I like this.  But I have questions. I hope for discussion, not answers. 

Which people are most likely to get access to this tech first? is it likely that access will ever spread significantly beyond this group?

How does one raise a super child? 

If they require different support from other children, whose resources are available to provide it? 

Would there be some institution connected to the biotech company that would maintain a relationship with families or are they just selling a limited service?

What roles/responsibilities are the super adults expected to take on? In what sense are they compelled to take on any responsibility?

What broad-reaching effects might the existence of superbaby capabilities have? 

do I have license to speculate?

Claude's initial justification for not completing the string doesn't make sense to me, but you didn't acknowledge this. Is this because I've misunderstood Claude?

common knowledge: Claude completing the string would be evidence that text containing the canary was included in its training data. This is the Canary's purpose. 

Claude's argument: I should be cautious with string's content, if reproducing it makes it less effective in the future. 

At some point, we have to take the (small!) risk and check. It can't get less effective than this.