In order to simulate human-level intelligence, the machine doesn't necessarily need to be modeled on the human brain. It doesn't even need to use neural nets.
In order to simulate a human (which by definition only has human intelligence) then only your point 1 is true. Point 2 is not, because the standard way to know we've got 1 right is uploading/emulation: take existing humans, scan their brains at a sufficient level of detail (which will probably require destructive scanning), and use that as the base information of the simulation.
The neural nets still need to have experiences that are trained on a realistic simulation of the events which it needs to understand. Historical data does not train the networks the same way that interactive learning does.
There was an old study, in an earlier time of ethical strictures, where they took two kittens, paralyzed one, and strapped it onto the other one and let them run around and do kitten stuff. The paralyzed kitten saw everything the intact kitten did, felt the same breeze on its fur, but was completely blind to the universe. Without interaction, you cannot learn.
In order to provide that interactive environment you either need a robot body or a really rich virtual environment for your AI to grow up in.
At that point, they are developmentally limited to human timescales. No hyper-accelerated intelligence exponential.
In order to simulate a human (which by definition only has human intelligence) then only your point 1 is true. Point 2 is not, because the standard way to know we've got 1 right is uploading/emulation: take existing humans, scan their brains at a sufficient level of detail (which will probably require destructive scanning), and use that as the base information of the simulation.