In A.I., we see this with hard-coded, assembly FSM’s vs interpreters running high-level code. The former works with high-efficiency out of the box but can’t change behavior or improve much. The latter does nothing until it’s taught the extra knowledge (interpreted codes) which also might have new behaviors (functions). Many game developers switched from hard-coded assembly to interpreted code for AI agents for that reason.
So, it’s not under-developed: it’s a better-developed component with different tradeoffs.
Holy assumptions batman. Homo sapiens aren't "superior", that's a terrible starting place for a hypothesis. There are plenty of metrics a human will never beat other species. Reaction time is a great starting place.
It's like you're saying "We humans are the smartest in the world. Smarter animals are better than other animals, so we're better than all other animals."
A giraffe may just as well believe "We giraffes have the longest necks in the world. Animals with longer necks are better than others, so we're better than all other animals."
"Intelligence" itself is not well defined anyway. It may as well mean thinking like a human.
Yet what have they done with their long necks?
Of course humans define the metric. Who else could?! Lmao.
Let's ask the giraffes what intelligence means... oh wait.
Maybe we can't name it, make it's not a competition or leaderboard, but you can't deny Humans are at the top of something.