It's a very unconvincing argument that culture, bodies or childhood are required for intelligence. Moreover, that computers could not have any of them (or functional equivalents, if in fact they are of any functional use at all).

I don't buy that the single data point that is Human intelligence has much to say about the possible bounds or limits of general intelligence.

Computers inhabit a world. They have interactions. Seems sufficient to me. As for culture - they have enough learning material of human culture, and it's not impossible to train multiple AI intelligences at the same time to create a culture of their own. Surely at some point in history Humans developed their culture from nothing? As for childhood - attempts at AI already have training periods where they are given training data, made more plastic and develop against simple situations before moving on to more complex situations.

The (also terrible and wrong) Chinese room argument is more convincing.