You are thinking about the system of the species by looking at one brain in isolation. That is very myopic. The value is in the diversity of the network.
You are comparing all of humanity to one machine. That is not fair. You should compare one human to one machine. Because then you should compare a network of billions of machines to humanity. If a single machine can outsmart a single human, then a network of a billion of those machines will outsmart a network of a billion of humans (also called humanity). Guess what ? That network of humans even needs the machine network to exist ; the machine network doesn't need the humans to interact.
I didn't want to start this debate, because I knew you would drag me into a long noisy debate and now as expected you are ignoring the points I have made. I have already refuted this line of argument.
Please revisit what I have already written and put your thinking cap on. You are not dumb. You have the IQ to understand, if you take off your blinders.
Comparing one human to one machine is not informational at all. That is your first fundamental logic error on this subject matter. Then work forward from there really thinking carefully about my other points.
Why would machines have more entropy? Replication and acquiring knowledge faster is not an increase in entropy.
...
It is our interaction biologically with our environment over long periods of evolution that has given us the extremely high entropy that we can't transfer to machines (because it would require the machines be each one of us because none of us can totally comprehend the entire network of all of us).
...
The genes are not the largest store of entropy in our species. The encoding our entropy is in the living network of the species. Our network is alive also, analogous to the brain of ants is the collective brain of the colony. Our entropy is on the magnitude of some exponential or perhaps factorial of a billion (will need to think this out a bit when I have more time).
...
You are thinking about the system of the species by looking at one brain in isolation. That is very myopic. The value is in the diversity of the network.