It's not about being wrong. god knows the history of philosophy is about being wrong in new and creative ways.
My point is if you assume the Computational theory of mind - Wikipedia you should be aware of the baggage that assumption brings and additionally what sort of limitations it may have. If you are already looking at the brain from the view point that it operates as a computer, you can easily miss out on things where it may act in ways that are not like a computer. The most obvious example of this is the experience of consciousness, which our brains do have and computers (lets put aside the argument that ChatGPT is conscious) in general do not.
Some people and philosophers do assume the computation theory of mind as generally true and it leads them to conclusions like consciousness is an illusion because 1) computers aren't conscious 2) our brains are like computers 3) our consciousness is at best an illusions / a movie to watch in the theater of our mind that we have no control over. I don't personally agree with this, but if you assume the computational theory of mind I can see how you can get to that conclusion.
My only real point is that it's important to be aware of the implications the assumptions we make about ourselves, the metaphors we use, and I also think its a interesting trend throughout human history to try to understand the brain by relating it to whatever the most advanced tech is. Especially interesting now since we are inventing tech with the explicit purpose of trying to work like our mind does, so if we keep looking at our mind through the lens of our most advanced tech, we're about to go down a hall of infinite mirrors.