tl;dr: Humans have souls which machines will never have. The core of the article is this quote "I will extend that further to claim that the only way to get a very human-like thought process is to run the computation on very human-like wet tissue. That also means that very big, complex artificial intelligences run on dry silicon will produce big, complex, unhuman-like minds." which is just the boring old argument against replicating human thinking.

Similarly, there is an extreme amount of pro-human arrogance in the article "At the core of the notion of a superhuman intelligence — particularly the view that this intelligence will keep improving itself — is the essential belief that intelligence has an infinite scale. I find no evidence for this.... So the question is, where is the limit of intelligence? We tend to believe that the limit is way beyond us, way “above” us, as we are “above” an ant. Setting aside the recurring problem of a single dimension, what evidence do we have that the limit is not us? Why can’t we be at the maximum?"

Humans are just a bunch of atoms that randomly learned to think over a few billion years. Given how fast we can improve tech via directed means, we should be able to replicate what nature has done in thousands, hundreds, or tens of years.