I've tried it. It isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Oh, and that is, of course, under the assumption that that hyperintelligence wants us around. Somebody has to change its vacuum tubes, I suppose, but there ought to be robots for that by then.
On a more serious note, there is an underlying and very unproven assumption that what we describe as human consciousness can be migrated to another medium. Quite a few years ago Roger Penrose suggested that it might not; that human consciousness might be a biological quantum event that is otherwise untranslatable. And further, that the Ghost in the Machine that Gilbert Ryle so ridiculed might actually have a basis in truth, that that silly "soul" thing that Christians are always nattering about might (gasp!) actually be real.
We don't know. We're not even close to being in a position to know, and all of this is mere speculation. It is clear, however, from testing on neural networking that a full human intelligence requires resources that are equal to a human brain and that it takes time to learn, to train, not to program. We have developed such a system already. It's called a "baby".
I might, of course, be entirely mistaken. I used to be a strong-AI proponent but I don't know, maybe it's just me, but there does seem to be a little more to it than that. Just my $0.02.
Penrose has no foundation for his theory. There is nothing that indicates complexity creates consciousness, just self-referential stimuli. That’s not consciousness - consciences is what is aware of the self-referential stimuli.