Usually the comment sections here are pretty fun to read but anything neuroscience related results in absolute cringe-inducing comment chains. This one is no exception.
Neuroscience is also a field that mostly happens within academia, unlike something like computer science where a ton of work legitimately is being done at the types of companies many HN users work at, so where you can indeed get something approaching expert-level knowledge on the job in some cases in the latter, almost no one on the forum has enough exposure to be an expert in the former. Couple that with the previous thesis and you end up with a bunch of people who don't know what they don't know (I will not be engaging on Dunning Kruger in this thread). That plus, perhaps, a bit of hubris and you're gonna get a wonky comment section.
But I don't know how "computers" work nor do I know how brains work. (I do know a fair bit about the types of computers we are talking to one another and that host HN, but a computing machine is more than that) In fact, that's what got me into ML in the first place. What a crazy computer, that we've been studying it for thousands of years but still so much remains a mystery. How even extremely basic questions have baffled us for centuries. We still stumble over the nature of consciousness, sentience, and sapience. We still can't even agree on the definitions of these things!
And by computer, I mean that there is a mechanistic process. One that is void of magic and beholden to the laws of physics. Which means, we should be able to replicate it. But this is also true for planets, galaxies, and so much more. So that does not mean it is within our capacity now or anywhere in the near future.
History shows that we tend to use as metaphor whatever popular technology is in place at the time. Right now is neural networks. Before, computers, telegraphs, hydraulic systems and so on.
I could easily imagine the next analogy being quantum computers. Or whatever trending technology comes around 2030.
That said, a computer is a very vague term. I think if you strictly mean the device we are typing to one another on or the thing that transmits the signals between our machines, you have overfit. Even with how the word itself has historically been used as well as even used today. A person can be called a computer as well as a physical slide ruler. It is simply a machine that can calculate, which is absolutely another vague term. In fact, if the universe is completely mechanistic, we could frame it as a computer (but do not confuse this with all that simulation stuff, that's a misunderstanding of what a universe as a simulation actually means).
FWIW, Roger Penrose for quite some time been making the connection of a brain to a quantum computer. The problem with that is we aren't exactly seeing quantum processes in the way we'd expect (though there are clearly some quantum processes). It gets nuanced, but it's a rabbit hole that sounds like you'll enjoy going down.