You're not getting downvoted for being mean about DeepMind, you're getting downvoted for making overconfident pronouncements about things you don't understand.
"Neural Turing machines" are not the same thing as neuronal memory allocation: NTMs' memory is external and neuronal memory allocation is all about how memory is stored in neurons in the brain.
The "synthetic gradients" in that paper have nothing to do with the electrochemical gradients you mention other than the name.
No one is claiming that the DeepMind guys are "operating on another level" because they do bio-inspired things. They are claiming that because they are getting more impressive results than anyone else.
Now: Are they really? If so, is that enough justification for such a grand-sounding claim. I don't know. That would be an interesting discussion to have. But "Boooo, these people are just copying things present in the brain, there's nothing impressive about that" is not, especially when the parallels between the brain-things and the DeepMind-things are as feeble as in your examples.
"Neural Turing machines" are not the same thing as neuronal memory allocation: NTMs' memory is external and neuronal memory allocation is all about how memory is stored in neurons in the brain.
The "synthetic gradients" in that paper have nothing to do with the electrochemical gradients you mention other than the name.
No one is claiming that the DeepMind guys are "operating on another level" because they do bio-inspired things. They are claiming that because they are getting more impressive results than anyone else.
Now: Are they really? If so, is that enough justification for such a grand-sounding claim. I don't know. That would be an interesting discussion to have. But "Boooo, these people are just copying things present in the brain, there's nothing impressive about that" is not, especially when the parallels between the brain-things and the DeepMind-things are as feeble as in your examples.