In case anyone thinks the above joke is actually what the paper is doing: it is not. The work is trying to use the same techniques that neuroscientists use on neural systems on a processor. The reason is simple: we already understand processors backwards-and-forwards. The authors' hypothesis is that if the techniques we use on neural systems do not yield useful insights that match the already known-correct understanding of a processor, then we may have a problem with our current neural techniques.

It seems the paper is about using neuroscience techniques (designed for the brain which is hard to measure nondestructively) to examine microprocessors (which we already know all the physical measurements of) in order to evaluate how effective these techniques would be if we weren't so limited in our measurement of the brain. It's not as vapid as the title suggests.

Indeed, the title leads you in an unsatisfying direction.