Ever since the development of language, the intelligence of an individual human has not been a bottleneck for the achievements of humanity.
A surprising claim.
The brilliance of individuals like Newton may have been crucial for speeding up the Scientific Revolution, but there have been brilliant individuals for millennia. The crucial difference between Newton and Archimedes is not that Newton was smarter, but rather that he lived at a later time and thus was able to stand on the shoulders of more giants. As another example, a collection of humans, aided by Internet-connected computers, can do much better at pretty much any intelligence feat (including but not limited to IQ exams) than any single human.
There is a function with 2 inputs, intelligence and other resources. You are arguing about the shape of this function, given only a line of inputs.
This argument shows that, given fixed human intelligence, more other resources such as books, computers etc produce reasonably high returns in progress. Given the same intelligence, researchers with better tools are more productive.
This doesn’t let you claim that human intelligence wasn’t a bottleneck. As far as I can tell, you have presented no baysian evidence about what a smarter than max human mind might or might not be able to accomplish.
A surprising claim.
There is a function with 2 inputs, intelligence and other resources. You are arguing about the shape of this function, given only a line of inputs.
This argument shows that, given fixed human intelligence, more other resources such as books, computers etc produce reasonably high returns in progress. Given the same intelligence, researchers with better tools are more productive.
This doesn’t let you claim that human intelligence wasn’t a bottleneck. As far as I can tell, you have presented no baysian evidence about what a smarter than max human mind might or might not be able to accomplish.