> Even when we "generalize" our intelligence, we can only extend it within the realm of human senses & concepts, so it's still intelligence specific to human concerns.
...then we might fail to recognized them as intelligent when we meet them. Same goes for emergent artificial doohickeys. A theory that allows for generalization might never fine an example of it, but it's still better than a theory which doesn't because the second sort surely won't.
When you make the term "general intelligence" so broad that it expands beyond the realm of human senses & concepts, statements about it become unfalsifiable because you, a human, can't conceive of a way to test said statement.
Unfalsifiable statements are worthless because they can't be tested.
So, at the very least, there's no point in humans trying to theorize about intelligence so general that it expands beyond human comprehension.
Basically, in the context of universal intelligence, I'm an atheist & you're agnostic.
It's just not guaranteed.