Yup, I'd say that's a fair way of expressing it, although I think we take "neural substrate that is structurally similar to the human brain" much more seriously than other people that use phrases like that. It's a similar enough substrate that if fixes a lot of our parameter values for us, leaving us less open to "fiddle with parameters until it works".
We've also tried to make sure to highlight that it can't learn new tasks, so it's not able to work in the fluid domains people do. It also doesn't have any intrinsic motivation to do that switching.
Interestingly, there are starting to be good non-neural theories of human task switching (e.g. [http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/publications/pubinfo.php?id=831] ). These are exactly the sorts of theories we want to take a close look at and see how they could be realistically implemented in spiking neurons.
Not sure if this has been covered on LW, but it seems highly relevant to WBE development. Link here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/147gqm/we_are_the_computational_neuroscientists_behind/
A few questioners mention the Singularity and make Skynet jokes.
The abstract from their paper in Science:
I'm curious to see LWers' perspectives on the project.