> And probably the way we humans have built our computers also reflects how the universe really works, because after all we are bits of the universe doing whatever the universe is doing.

I think this is way too simplistic. Just like planes don't fly like birds, computers don't work like "the universe"

We don't know much about the brain at all and starting to think about it in terms of "computer" logic seems very wrong to me. Computers are our very crude and poor attempt at replicating brains/intelligence, by definition they're built on ultra simplified principles that our own brains came up with, using computer terms to define the brain/universe is closing a loop that doesn't exist

It only sounds like a waste because you(we)'re constrained by our own brains, the universe doesn't care about our ability to understand or make sense of it. Something might sound unoptimised to you(us) but might be the only way allowed by physics.

Naming and defining computer parts using human/brain related terms was an error imho, it confuses people and make them think we are able to replicate (or even understand) things that we have no clue about, they're very poor analogies.

> That would be huge waste of resources and just damn stupid.

Isn't the entire universe a huge waste of resource and just damn stupid ?