This is an interesting comment. I agree that I hear the "all we need is 86 billion neurons and we will habe parity with the human brain", and I feel it is dubious to think this way because there is no reason why this arbitrary number must work.

I also think it is a bit strange to use the human brain as an analogy because biological neurons supposedly are booleans and act in groups to achieve float level behavior. For example I can have neurologic pain in my fingers that isn't on off, but rather, has differences in magnitude.

I think we should move away from the biology comparisons and just seek to understand if "more neurons = more better" is true, and if it is, how do we shove more into RAM and handle the exploding compute complexity.