It's a bit falacious to set a stone definition for AI when we're talking potential. My basic question is what characteristic is both necessary for human intelligence and impossible to be incorporated by AI?

​

>the piece of code...

currently yes, but there's no rule that says this must be true. Also I don't think this has much to do with 'designer' so much as adaptability. We can design a virus, but it will still mutate.

​

>I understand AI as a scientific discipline. "Artificial intelligence" is not the same as human intelligence but artificial. They are fundamentally different.

If you're just speaking of AI in it's current form, then sure, but I think the real question isn't whether current AI's are intelligent, but whether they can be made to be intelligent. And more specifically whether the networks in which they operate can function as a 'body'

Your differentiators for what makes a human and an ai sepprate forms of intelligence don't read as foundational differences so much as superficial ones.

How would an ai be necessarily a closed system such that human intelligences are not?

How would an ai be necessarily a passive system such that human intelligences are not?

Why does a designer matter at all?

You're saying the parts cannot be taken out and replaced, but they can they? A heart can be replaced by plastic, you can replace insulin production with a pump. None of these things seem to fundamentally change the particular human intelligence such that you wouldn't call it the same intelligence.

But it's foreign to my experience and therefore condemnable