I will generalize my answer to the game-theoretic problem we're trying to solve.
The answer, unsurprisingly, is "it depends."
The fundamental problem is one of comparing:
- a strongly unified leadership chain (in our extreme case, the enterprise consists of a single superhuman decision-maker/worker/evaluator/enforcer)
- a loose leadership chain (separate decision makers, workers, evaluators, enforcers with some degree of principal-agent problems)
Human organizations generally can achieve more than a single human individual, despite partial or complete non-overlap in incentive structures and strategic goals among the members of the organization. This is due to several factors. First, humans have limited attention span and limited capabilities to manipulate the environment per unit of time. When a task to be accomplished can be broken up into parallelizable chunks, organizations that have evaluators and enforcers can often produce results broadly aligned with the goals of the decision makers in a fraction of the time and with significantly better error correction than a single individual could.
For example, it takes the combined efforts of thousands (tens millions if you work through the supply chains) to build a Space Launch System, and no single human can hold all that information in their mind.
However, large human organizations come with significant downsides, sometimes due to incentive differences between the leader of the organization's goals and that of portions of their team, sometimes due to the limited capability of the leaders themselves who are after all human and cannot foresee the future, or may even be playing political games if they are more interested in maintaining leadership than in accomplishing the stated goals of the organization. This is why for instance large organizations have a very hard time innovating -- the upside for a potential innovator for undertaking a risky project is overwhelmed by the perceived downside if the project fails in the eyes of their manager. Most people are content to receive a salary and are risk averse, since most of the benefits from a major innovation would not accrue to them. This is also why creative people rarely thrive in large organizations, unless special measures are taken to shield them from the bureaucratic incentive structure (special innovation labs etc).
Now imagine that you can build a human-like mind (a goal-oriented mind), but can expand the attention and reality manipulation capabilities without limit. Imagine an entire research or industrial complex run by a single vast mind with thousands of versatile manipulators. With proper protocols and subroutines, there would be no miscommunication, and a properly scaled decision maker could be aware of all the relevant factors available to the entity. Such an entity could be vastly more proficient at a particular task than any human organization.
Seems fabulous, right? So what are some potential downsides? Well, if the organization does not have a clearly definable goal (i.e. it doesn't exactly know what it wants to do at the outset) the peculiarities of its problem-solving and pattern-detection algorithms might prevent it from seeing solutions that other differently designed minds mind find obvious.
So, ask yourself. Does the solution to whatever the organization is trying to accomplish require combining multiple perspective and thinking outside the box? If so, having multiple minds will bring an advantage. Does the solution lend itself to the kind of scaling a super-human (but human-like) mind might be able to accomplish. Would a human-like mind somehow capable of controlling a thousand hands do it about a thousand times faster? If so, having a single unified entity might be a superior solution.