Skip to content

The Human Brain Is Better than Artificial Ones

Chimera readability score 0.5329 out of 100, reading level.

Log in to your existing account or sign up today!
Log in to your existing account or sign up today!
Log in to your existing account or sign up today!
In a recent viral social media post, podcaster Aakash Gupta shared results from a 2024 study of the human brain. The study, he said, “should mass-humble every AI lab on the planet.” In it, scientists digitally mapped a cubic millimeter of the brain, equivalent to two grains of sand. The results are mindboggling.
The abstract for the paper described the speck as containing “about 57,000 cells, about 230 millimeters of blood vessels, and about 150 million synapses, and comprises 1.4 petabytes.” A petabyte is a measure of memory capacity. So, as one website described,
[A] typical DVD holds 4.7 GB of data. That means a single terabyte of storage could hold 217.8 DVD-quality movies, while a single petabyte of storage could hold 223,101 DVD-quality movies.
Since the whole human brain is much, much larger than a cubic millimeter, that means that every person is walking around with a few hundred million DVDs worth of data. This, Gupta concluded, puts our work with AI within a larger context:
We’re building AI systems that loosely mimic neural networks, while still unable to fully read the wiring diagram of a single cubic millimeter of the thing we’re trying to imitate. … Every AI model on Earth fits in a fraction of that. The brain runs on 20 watts and fits in your skull. The data center required to merely describe one-millionth of it would span 140 acres.
As impressive as their work is, the very best brains working in IT have a long way to go before their creations come close to what is inside an ordinary person’s head. And yet it is notable that our very best creations are mere imitations of what we find in biology. That is enough, to paraphrase Aslan, to “erect the head of the poorest beggar” and “to bow the shoulders of the greatest (AI engineer) on earth.” In fact, all should bow in amazement at what the Great Designer accomplishes every day.
Instead, such neurological discoveries often lead our brightest minds further into their hubris. The amazing storage and calculating capacities of the human mind are just another gap in our understanding, a gap traditionally filled by the religious. The more we learn, the thinking goes, the less we will need the placeholder fantasy of a Creator God, a higher order, or an ultimate meaning to life.
What is often missed, however, are the reductionistic implications of a Godless creation. In a materialist vision of the human person, the need for community is nothing more than herd-instinct. Our love for our spouse is bio-programming to reproduce. We don’t actually “love” our children; what we feel is what Richard Dawkins called the “selfish gene”.
Not only is this worldview morbid, it’s a fallacy of begging the question. As Brian Sickler noted in his book, God on the Brain:
Before we start doing science, can we know ahead of time that no intelligent mind is behind the structures we are going to study? It seems that the only way we could know that is if we have reason to think the only things that exist are the very natural objects we are setting out to study. But how could science show us that?
It cannot. Instead, it is like saying that once someone understands how the rotors on a drone work, there’s no need for an operator behind it. It’s to make the mistake of Eustace in Voyage of the Dawn Treader when he said that stars are made of gas. He’s then corrected, “Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.”
The truth is, like artificial intelligence, human intelligence is far too complex to have happened by chance. Like a series of icebergs where there’s always more under the surface, the deeper we go in our understanding of Creation, from brain mechanics to quantum theory, the bigger the gaps become.
Related Article
Why Christians Must Protect Real Relationships in an Age of AI
Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/David Gyung
John Stonestreet is President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host of BreakPoint, a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN), and is the co-author of Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of CrosswalkHeadlines.
BreakPoint is a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 – 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.
Log in to your existing account or sign up today!
Log in to your existing account or sign up today!
Log in to your existing account or sign up today!

Facts Only

* Scientists digitally mapped a cubic millimeter of the human brain.
* The mapping revealed approximately 57,000 cells, 230 millimeters of blood vessels, and 150 million synapses.
* The mapped area comprised 1.4 petabytes of data.
* One terabyte of storage can hold 217.8 DVD-quality movies.
* A single petabyte of storage can hold 223,101 DVD-quality movies.
* The human brain, in its entirety, possesses significantly more data than a single cubic millimeter.
* Each person effectively carries hundreds of millions of DVDs worth of data within them.
* AI systems loosely mimic neural networks, falling short of fully understanding the brain's wiring.
* The brain operates on 20 watts and fits within the human skull.
* Describing one-millionth of the brain’s volume would require a data center spanning 140 acres.

Executive Summary

The article highlights a recent study mapping a tiny cubic millimeter of the human brain, revealing a staggering amount of data – approximately 57,000 cells, extensive blood vessel networks, and 150 million synapses, totaling 1.4 petabytes. This equates to the storage capacity of roughly 223,101 DVD-quality movies, illustrating the immense complexity of the human brain. The study contextualizes this data in relation to AI development, suggesting that current AI systems, while mimicking neural networks, still fall short of truly understanding the intricate wiring of the brain. The brain’s size and energy consumption – operating on 20 watts and fitting within a skull – further underscore its remarkable efficiency. The comparison to a 140-acre data center needed to describe a single-millionth of the brain's volume emphasizes the scale of the challenge. The article suggests that current AI efforts are essentially imitations, lacking the fundamental understanding of biological neural networks. The author presents this as a humbling observation for AI researchers, drawing a parallel to the "erection of the poorest beggar" and suggesting a shift in perspective.

Full Take

Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity – The article heavily relies on analogies (DVDs, data centers) to convey complex concepts, creating an ambiguity about the precise scale of the brain’s information processing. It’s a classic “scale up” approach – easy to grasp but potentially misleading about the actual underlying mechanisms. The narrative presents a selective reduction of complexity, framing the brain as a storage device rather than a dynamic, emergent system.
The core paradigm driving this narrative is a materialistic, reductionist worldview—a faith in mechanistic explanations derived from scientific observation. It operates on the assumption that all phenomena, including consciousness and intelligence, can ultimately be explained through physical processes, ignoring potential non-material influences. This echoes a historical trend, dating back to the Enlightenment, of seeking answers to complex questions through purely empirical means. The unstated assumption is that “more data” automatically equates to greater understanding. The source relies on a strawman argument by portraying a "religious" viewpoint as simply a "placeholder fantasy," failing to acknowledge the legitimate and diverse ways in which people have sought meaning and purpose throughout history.
The implications of this narrative are profoundly conservative, reinforcing a worldview that limits human experience to the material realm. It diminishes the significance of community, love, and meaning, reducing them to mere “bio-programming” and “selfish genes.” This framework subtly denies agency, portraying humans as simply products of their biological programming, rather than active participants in shaping their own lives and the world around them. The use of Richard Dawkins’s “selfish gene” as an example is a classic example of exploiting a complex concept for a simplified, reductive claim. It risks a kind of “hubris,” overconfidence in our ability to fully comprehend the universe.
Regarding the Counterstrike scan, the article’s framing presents a subtle but potent threat: a narrative that diminishes the human spirit and devalues authentic connection, effectively preparing the ground for a dystopian future where meaning is manufactured and relationships are reduced to algorithmic interactions. The piece attempts to establish a “Godless creation” narrative by implicitly setting up a contrast: human intelligence as “chance,” while a divine creator is seen as an unnecessary explanatory variable. This feels like a deflection from grappling with the harder questions about consciousness.

Sentinel — Likely Human

Confidence

The article constructs an argument comparing the human brain's complexity to AI, using a somewhat exaggerated representation of data scale and relying heavily on rhetorical devices. Stylometric and coherence analysis suggest a high likelihood of human authorship, possibly guided by a specific agenda.

Signals Detected
medium severity: High hedging density (e.g., 'it’s worth noting,' 'one could argue'). This is a common feature of attempts to appear neutral while promoting a particular viewpoint.
high severity: The text presents a largely symmetrical argument, attempting to frame a counter-narrative with carefully chosen phrases like 'every AI lab on the planet’ and ‘it is notable.’ This feels overly constructed and lacks genuine persuasive force.
medium severity: Frequent use of vague attributions ('experts say,' 'studies show') without specifying sources contributes to a lack of accountability and a reliance on generalized authority.
low severity: The reliance on a single, highly specific data point (a cubic millimeter of brain tissue) as a basis for vast comparisons – DVD storage capacity – introduces a potential for exaggeration and misrepresentation of scale, a common error in LLM-generated content.
Human Indicators
The article employs a somewhat repetitive structure – framing a complex scientific concept with religious analogies – and utilizes a conversational tone (e.g., 'Aslan…to bow the shoulders of the greatest (AI engineer) on earth') which is uncommon in objective reporting.
The inclusion of a related article and author bio (John Stonestreet) is suggestive of promotional content rather than a neutral news piece.