Though: I can believe that our arrangement is a local optimum, sure. (Local in some genetic sense.)
That still doesn't make me believe that are anywhere close to a global optimum. Behold the octopus:
> Do these design problems [of optical blind spots] exist because it is impossible to construct an eye that is wired properly, so that the light-sensitive cells face the incoming image? Not at all. Many organisms have eyes in which the neural wiring is neatly tucked away behind the photoreceptor layer. The squid and the octopus, for example, have a lens-and-retina eye quite similar to our own, but their eyes are wired right-side out, with no light-scattering nerve cells or blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors, and no blind spot.
From https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html
You have a good point! Though I wouldn't say the 'same' pressures. We can actually identify differences in those pressure, and use those to speculate.
Eg human computational capacity does well in terms of total operations performed, but individual units are really, really slow compared to electronics. That means human hardware can't run anything that requires a lot of 'serial depth', everything has to be almost embarrassingly parallel to work, or involve a lot of lookup from caches.
Also the design of humans is constrained by what evolution can do. Eg we still have blind spots in our eyes, mostly because evolution can only take 'small steps' (small in the space of genes), and inverting the eye so that the light receptive cells are in front instead of behind the nerves and blood vessels is not a small step in that space.
The power constraints on humans and computer are likely to be different. Humans are also not networked with sub-second latencies to the rest of world.
(Just to be clear, the examples I gave are second-order corrections to your much more important first-order idea!)