Humanity is also immortal and self-modifying, it uses human bodies as the unit of program transfer and modification. Humanity's version is extremely slow, of course, and limited in quantity and quality of copies of a good program.
And the weird thing is, I've got this niggling suspicion that this handicap is actually a profound strength. That evolution didn't produce so many species of organisms separated by walls of flesh and bone, detached from one another and capable of wandering far apart, then incapable of even expressing fundamentally novel concepts (I mean novel novel, such that your language has no word for it and such that any metaphor would be more misleading than enlightening). We could have evolved such that when holding hands, a flow of specially produced chemicals seep from ones hand to the other, travelling to the brain and making the changes necessary to convey concepts exactly. Bacteria communicate in this way. They change each other. Directly. We could to. But... we don't. And there is maybe a reason for that.
There's a rather good argument that as a species, we're the stupidest thing nature could get away with that could still develop writing and science. So the reason may very well be that nature didn't bother.
I was referencing the superiority of AI minds to biological minds. Humanity not a thing which possesses a mind.
Neurons do not possess a mind, yet a collection does.
Humans do possess minds, and a collection of them does not.
You can't use the first statement to support the opposite of the second statement because the premise is dissimilar.