Yes of course you are right that an "artificial neuron" wouldn't (and can't) correspond 1:1 to a biological unit. Main point isn't about aging or degradation b

Yes of course you are right that an "artificial neuron" wouldn't (and can't) correspond 1:1 to a biological unit. Main point isn't about aging or degradation because these system characteristics will vary with the nature of the system. However the computational capability of biological neuronal circuits is not very well understood, but it surely is vast, considering the roles subserved for the purposes of the organism in which it is embedded. Personally, like the author of the article, I believe it's naive to predict AI will surpass human brains insofar as the functions that define "human". I don't doubt that computing systems can perform many tasks humans can't easily accomplish, e.g., calculate pi to 1000 places. But I don't regard that as the crux of the question. Determining "meaning" in social interactions, receptive decoding of emotional significance of subtle verbal expression are a couple of examples, but I'll concede they could be unfair. I've been a keen student of human brain structure and function in relation to behavior for a number of decades, and so little is truly known about most all of it. We don't know how any of the several types of memory work, we are just beginning to sort out the mind-boggling complexities of how critical neurons receive and transmit signals. Believe me, I have enormous respect for and great affection for the capabilities of our advancing technologies. I'm a real fan, the reason I very much enjoy HN. But in fundamental ways what we do with computers (and the other relevant technologies) is kind of orthogonal to our neurobiological systems. Conflating these can mislead us to our disadvantage because then what we'd call AI will not really replace "NI" (natural intelligence), imagining it will predisposes to disappointing failures. That's my view of it based on experience, everything has limits, just as you said, including limits on what's humanly knowable, bounded by structural constraints of what we cannot know. Where that boundary lies is indeterminate but not infinite, we keep up the push until slamming into Nature's wall, regroup and turn a different way.