> https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09211

I am thoroughly unimpressed by this paper. It sets up a vague strawman definition of "thinking" that I'm not aware of anyone using (and makes no claim it applies to humans) and then knocks down the strawman.

It also leans way too heavy on determinism - For one thing, we have no way of knowing if human brains are deterministic (until we solve whether reality itself is). For another, I doubt you would suddenly reverse your position if we created a LoRa composed of atmospheric noise, so it does not support your real position.

> https://ml-site.cdn-apple.com/papers/the-illusion-of-thinkin...

This one is more substantial, but:

"While these models demonstrate improved performance on reasoning benchmarks, their fundamental capabilities, scaling properties, and limitations remain insufficiently understood. [...] Through extensive experimentation across diverse puzzles, we show that frontier LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities. [...] We found that LRMs have limitations in exact computation: they fail to use explicit algorithms and reason inconsistently across puzzles."

Starts by saying "we actually don't understand them" (meaning we don't know well enough to give a yes or no) and then proceeds to list flaws that, as I keep saying, also can be applied to most (if not all) humans' ability to reason. Human reasoning also collapses in accuracy above a certain complexities, and certainly are observed to fail to use explicit algorithms, as well as reasoning inconsistently across puzzles.

So unless your definition of anthropomorphization excludes most humans, this is far from a slam dunk.

> They don’t even always output their internal state accurately.

I have some really bad news about humans for you. I believe (Buddha et al, 500 BCE) is the foundational text on this, but there's been some more recent research (Hume, 1739), (Kierkegaard, 1849)