If we had a theory of intelligence that allowed us to say "this is why and how machines are intelligent and how they become more intelligent" we'd likely be very close to solving the alignment problem as well, obviating the need for the book.

The book fits into the current unknown-unknowns world of rapidly increasing machine-learning capabilities across most domains where there is little evidence to suggest that "intelligence" is limited to the human limit (which is already quite high relative to the 99.9th percentile; we get a few Einstein, Von Neumann, Turing class people in a century) or the human body.

    So, they say, computers are not smart now, we don’t know what intelligence is, we don’t know how to make computers smart, but they certainly will be intelligent soon.

Is this an AI bot writing about why AI cannot exist like some new kind of AI performance art? What are we looking at here?

> they don’t present any evidence, or discuss how computers might get to intelligence.

Rationalists don't need pesky things like data or evidence to assert their desired conclusions as fact. Don't you know, you can assert your vibes as science, now.