Materially;
That’s bad news for anyone hoping to simulate a brain digitally. It means there’s a lot more relevant stuff to simulate (like the learning that goes on within cells) than the connectionist paradigm of treating each biological neuron like a neural-net “neuron” would imply, and thus the computational requirements of simulating a brain are higher — maybe vastly higher — than connectionists hope.
I get where she’s coming from, and she’s not wrong, but it seems like unnecessary detour to dunk on another AI “camp” in the field for drama points and satisfaction - the Marcus Maneuver, if you will.
Connectionism isn’t a cult or an institution, it’s a paradigm that emphasis the utility of big nets of interconnected smaller pieces. Any self-avowed connectionist (are there any left? Honest question) could just retreat to “ok well it’s networks of brain cells plus smaller intracellular networks” and keep their paradigm. And all we can say to that is “ugh, I guess”, as far as I can tell!