What's the argument here? An airplane, a bee and a bird all fly despite doing it totally differently. LLMs also reason despite being made out of matmuls instead of meat.
This is just a trick of language. There's no rule that says a priori whether an English word created before the invention of machines mimicking the behaviour, should describe the mimicry. There's no contradiction between "an airplane can 'fly'" and "a computer cannot 'reason'" because there is no reason why the two claims should relate whatsoever.
> What's the argument here?
The most common argument for this is some core unexamined axiom that only humans can reason by definition, and then working backwards to a justification for that.