The authorâ(TM)s obsession with the "biological vs. artificial" distinction is the exact same logical fallacy as arguing that airplanes can't actually fly because they don't have feathers or flap their wings like birds. The output (flight) is the same; the mechanism (Bernoulli's principle vs. biomechanics) is irrelevant.
This piece tries to argue that because the brain separates language and reasoning , a machine that unifies them can't be intelligent. That is peak absurdity. It is effectively the same thing as arguing that an electric vehicle isn't actually a "car" because it lacks a combustion engine and spark plugs; or insisting that a GPS navigation system doesn't "know" where it is because it triangulates signals rather than "remembering" landmarks like a London cabbie; or, to be even more pedantic, claiming that a speedometer isn't measuring "real" speed because it calculates wheel rotation rather than "feeling the wind" in its face. The method of arrival does not invalidate the destination, and calculating a correct answer via token prediction is functionally indistinguishable from "reasoning" to the observer.