The author has committed a serious epistemological error by repeatedly conflating neruons with simulated neurons. For example: "In sheer scale, it’s far more a

The author has committed a serious epistemological error by repeatedly conflating neruons with simulated neurons. For example: "In sheer scale, it’s far more ambitious than anything previously attempted, and it actually has almost ten times as many neurons as a human brain." No, it has ten times as many simulated neurons. It does not have any neurons. Unless it's a big wet biological computer. This kind of sloppy thinking is not too surprising to me, given that this is The New Yorker, which I consider to be exemplary of sloppy thinking almost as a rule.