Comment by AdieuToLogic

The post to which you replied states:

  Anthropomorphing[sic] seems to be in an overdose mode with 
  "thinking / thoughts", "mind" etc., scattered everywhere. 
  Nothing with any of the LLMs outputs so far suggests that 
  there is anything even close enough to a mind or a thought 
  or anything really outside of vanity.

This is supported by reasonable interpretation of the cited article.

Considering the two following statements made in the reply:

  I'm one of the authors.

And

  These papers are jointly 150 pages and are quite 
  technically dense, so it's very understandable that most 
  commenters here are focusing on the non-technical blog post.

The onus of clarifying the article's assertions:

  Knowing how models like Claude *think* ...

And

  Claude sometimes thinks in a conceptual space that is 
  shared between languages, suggesting it has a kind of 
  universal “language of thought.”

As it pertains to anthropomorphizing an algorithm (a.k.a. stating it "thinks") is on the author(s).