One of the first things this guy appeals to is Moore's Law... most of the stuff he mentions in this article is neither cutting edge nor particularly clever.
Maybe that's a little unfair but, getting past his weird advertisement of his beliefs about gender relations, I find that he seems strangely non-technical in a lot of fields he draws from.
He states that "If Moore's Law continues unstopped until 2020 or thereabouts, it will be possible to store one bit of information (a zero or a one, a "0" or a "1") on a single atom. " I hesitate to make this point, but Moore's Law is not restricted by time... either we'll find out how to do that little trick (storing information on a single atom, which in terms of current photolithographic techniques is not very likely) or we won't. No law of even progression will govern this.
I won't say much about Avogadro's number other than the fact that it's the number of atoms/molecules in a mole of an element/compound, not the number of atoms in "an object of human scale".
In terms of physics, he says "In physics, the concept of "entropy" is used to measure how disordered a physical system is. For example, ice has a lower entropy than water, because it is more ordered, less chaotic."
Now since the heat-death of the universe - the ultimate expression of entropy, I suppose - will probably be extremely orderly, this description of entropy is rather backwards. However, this is not the most serious problem here...
He begins equating information to energy, in the belief that a system with no information loss will also generate no heat. This seems at odds with the physics of the situation as I understand it...
In general, there's a lot of "Moore's law will save us" assertions -
"All this information could be dumped into a "hyper-computer", that Moore's Law will make possible" - apparently ignoring the fact that Moore's law is not a law, but just an observation of a trend. His descriptions of artificial embryology betray no knowledge of biology, and his maunderings about "gigadeath" and "artilect gods" are no different from plenty of other speculative fiction.
Any reasonably smart high school student could have written this document, the misconceptions about various scientific fields are certainly in line with the regular public misconceptions. His descriptions seem imprecise and at times impossibly hopeful, and he still has not made any attempt to explain how making a computer bigger will make it intelligent; he is simply following the old science fiction saw that any computer that is big enough will become sapient, probably by accident while no one is looking.
After this he goes off into a long wander about Cosmism, the reasons why everything will be the way it will be, and a bunch of tiresome ideological claptrap which I didn't bother to do more than skim through.
From the quality of his composition it's hard to tell whether this guy is even a real university professor. I sincerely doubt that this document will provide any insight for anyone into artificial intelligence.