the motivation is also in the article, because the original research that suggested similarities in activity only achieved this by doing it under conditions that are implausible in biological systems, therefore that original research likely was misleading.
my point was that the architecture and models are so fairly different that at least the title is trivial. Nobody even the original research claimed that.
the suggested research and the paper in question deal with grid cells and how they emerge ...
Still artificial neural networks are summations over functions ... vastly different from our brain neural network. so yes caution is advised, yet that point and the title is so obvious that we don't need a paper for it.
my assumption, the author hides the rather technical contribution of the paper behind a tautology to get some attention. seemed to have worked on hackernews as it's on the front page.
