You start with a riff on the naturalistic fallacy "nature did it so it must be the right way" and conclude that all efforts to create AI not informed by neurobi

You start with a riff on the naturalistic fallacy "nature did it so it must be the right way" and conclude that all efforts to create AI not informed by neurobiology are doomed to fail (as doomed to fail as randomly assembling components and hoping for a jet as the output)? Further, I'd wager more than half of AI researchers are at least surface-level familiar with brain science, not (as you claim) less than 1 in a million (are there even a million AI researchers?). There's significant work between computational neuroscience, mathematics, philosophy, computer science, etc, etc in the field. Many smart people are giving it their best effort to understand different pieces of the puzzle from many different viewpoints and angles; FAANG corporations might be among the most visible, but their AI is necessarily profit driven and close to the ground, relevant to currently tractable problems (amenable to 'mere statistics'). And in fact, slavishly copying nature is something which has long been on the AI back-burner, but we're on the order of at least a decade from being able to create a computer system with enough transistors to do so. Not sure what else to say, really.