The basis is the complexity growth trend that we have already observed in computing (and most other human endeavors)

There is zero evidence that progress toward AGI follows Moore's Law. And we observe much slower complexity growth in most other human endeavors.

But there's a lot of evidence that computer power follows Moore's law. All that matters is that the growth is exponential.

Evolution took a billion years to evolve multi-cellular life, but the jump from apes to humans took far less than a million years.

That's a total non-sequitur. So far there is zero evidence that increases in computing power are getting us any close to true AGI. It's entirely possible that we've been moving sideways, or even backwards, relative to that goal.

And we can't reliably extrapolate growth in computing power more than a few years into the future. It's possible that the curve isn't really exponential, but rather an S-curve which will eventually flatten out.

Now you're going out of context. We very well may be on the wrong track for making an AGI, but the OP's premise was that once a mouse-level AGI is achieved, human-level AGI won't be far behind.

I'm more comfortable predicting that computing power will continue to grow than to predict that it will peter out and everyone will simply sit back and be happy with what we've got.

Moores Law has not been working anymore like what, last 5 years?

Computer processing power is not growing at an exponential rate. The physical limitations of Moore's law are well known and imminent.

Moore's law is essentially tracking the transistor density on silicon. We may be pushing up against physics in that area, but that is not the same thing as processing power. Our systems grow ever more complex. Each generation enables new tools that enable the creation of the next. When Moore's law finally crashes and burns, we will compensate using other technologies. Multicore and multiprocessing, shifting work to the cloud, advanced materials, etc. Hell, even quantum could take off in the next decade or two. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that we just give up and rest once we've reached the limits of silicon transistors.

> We may be pushing up against physics in that area, but that is not the same thing as processing power

I didn't say we're pushing up against the limits of processing power, I said that processing power is not growing exponentially, which is true, despite the gains that other advancements and innovation have provided.

Moore's law is reasonably dead.

We're moving faster than Moore's Law, see "Hyper Moore’s Law":

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/256558-nvidias-ceo-dec...