There is no "best" outcome. There are only outcomes. If an organism is decentralized, then it can't run a global simulation (the data can't be brought to a centralized computation, i.e. consciousness, in real-time without collapsing the present and past into a one), thus it is still only outcomes not a overall "best" outcome. I will not repeat this again (more than 5 times already I have written it), even though you continue ignoring it.
The time it takes to send information to the other side of the world is pretty much instant when compared to biological evolution timescales.
And you keep insisting on best; i said before, it doesn't need to be the best, just better than humans.
If a decentralized AI can aid adaption, then it can be incorporated into the human brain so we become Cyborgs, e.g. Google is my external memory and the integration will be improving soon as there is research on direct tapping into the brain. Yet that isn't even the salient point. The human brain is more unique because (collectively) it has more entropy. I explained why in my blog article Information is Alive!.
Sure, but assimilation isn't the only route that will be followed. Standalone AIs are very likely.
So we can't get more entropy into the AI than the human brain already has, because that entropy isn't derived from speed or power of computation, but rather from the zillions of tiny localized annealed decentralized steps of distributed life and including environmental development in the womb.
The human brain isn't the ultimate step; there is always room for improvement.
Kurzweil doesn't understand that computational power has nothing to do with the entropy of the system of life. To the extent that it becomes a competitive factor, then it is integrated into the decentralized, distributed system of life.
I'm not saying a post-singularity AI wouldn't be alive.
My point essentially is: huge computational power + self-improvement ability + natural selection = a life form beyond human control and understanding.