Okay, apparently I can't make a post supporting the view that "this is a stupid false dichotomy".

Moore's Law describes exponential growth, same with all similar computer/AI growth models. Exponentials DO NOT HAVE SINGULARITIES. So Moore's Law doesn't predict any kind of singularity, period.

Even if there was some kind of technological growth model that is singular (which I've seen in a minority of human energy use models), it will not necessarily correspond to the point of developing "Strong AI". So let's just separate all this out a bit.

Now, I believe that we will eventually develop Strong AI, and that singular models of human development do exist and have been and will be surpassed (one singularity we already passed is that of weapon lethality: the superbomb has an infinite theoretical yield - we raced the Russians to build it in the 50s and 60s - both sides won by different measures).

The notion that humans can't create something "smarter" or with "more knowledge" than themselves is absurd. Every time we take a digital photograph, it stores "more knowledge" than us (that can be read intelligently by a machine), and every time we use a calculator we are exploiting a tool that is "smarter" in a computational sense. We make things that are better than ourselves all the time, and it doesn't violate any sort of cosmic logic. We've even created systems of logic that are better than our own, for crying out loud.

In conclusion, you're all wrong about something.