I disagree. I haven't finished the article yet, but it smacks of arguing for mechanism over result.

If by some mechanism other than what a gatekeeper would call 'reasoning', a machine produces outputs that approach indistinguishable from 'well reasoned', the argument that it didn't get there by reasoning is, well, not useful at the very least.

Your last sentence is identical to your first sentence in your other comment. How can we be sure that you are reasoning and not just a stochastic parrot?