Skip to main content

【US English】A Structural Rebuttal to Apple's "The Illusion of Thinking"

Mitsuru Saito (June 12, 2025)

1. Introduction: Do AI Systems Truly "Think"?​

In June 2025, Apple’s Machine Learning Research division published the paper "The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity". This study investigated how Large Reasoning Models (LRMs)—a class of advanced language models—appear to demonstrate intelligent reasoning behavior, while in practice, their outputs deteriorate significantly when faced with problems of increasing complexity [Apple, 2025].

The authors conclude that what seems like genuine thought is, in reality, the result of complex syntactic pattern-matching mechanisms, lacking any form of authentic reasoning process. In other words, the apparent "thinking" is an illusion—an emergent property of learned statistical associations, not intentional cognition.

This paper aims to critically revisit that conclusion by focusing on a deeper, structural dimension of the issue. Namely:

Why do AI models exhibit the illusion of thought in the first place?
And what fundamental components are missing that prevent them from moving beyond this illusion?

To that end, we argue the following:

As long as AI systems lack core structural layers such as selfhood (subjective point-of-view), intentionality (value-driven focus), and consciousness (contextual meta-cognition and perspective-switching), they will remain fundamentally constrained to mimicking the appearance of thinking—without ever engaging in genuine thought.

This structural position forms the foundation of our analysis. In the following sections, we deconstruct Apple’s claims from a systems theory perspective, drawing upon cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and information theory to construct a layered rebuttal.

2. Structural Limitations of Transformer-Based AI​

2.1 Attention as Weight Distribution, Not True Focus​

The foundational paper "Attention is All You Need" by Vaswani et al. [2017] introduced the self-attention mechanism to enable non-recurrent sequence modeling in Transformers. However, the term “attention” here should not be conflated with the cognitive notion of deliberate focus or subjective salience.

Rather, it represents a form of statistical reweighting within a vector space, determining the relevance of tokens in relation to one another based on learned distributions—not based on intent, purpose, or stance.

As a result, Transformer-based models do not and cannot “choose” what to attend to. They perform numerical dependency calibration, not viewpoint-driven attention. The distinction is crucial in understanding their inability to engage in meaning-bearing reasoning from an internal perspective.

2.2 The Semantic Diffusion Problem in High-Dimensional Embedding Spaces​

Embedding models, as introduced by Mikolov et al. [2013], map linguistic elements into high-dimensional vector spaces. While this facilitates efficient semantic approximations, it simultaneously introduces a phenomenon we call semantic diffusion—the tendency for meaning to become contextually diluted or "ghost-like" as vector complexity increases.

This leads to several key structural issues:

  • Embeddings can represent semantic proximity without encoding intentional differentiation
  • The model lacks any inherent capacity to maintain or declare a point-of-view
  • Consequently, the answers produced may appear coherent, yet lack identifiable alignment with any specific goal, role, or interpretive frame

In short, these architectures generate outputs that simulate understanding—but only in the surface structure of language, not in the underlying logic of perspective or purpose.

3. A Structural Rebuttal Framework: The Three-Layer Model of Selfhood, Intent, and Consciousness​

This section introduces three essential yet absent structural components in current AI systems, each of which is critical for enabling consistent, context-aware, and purpose-driven reasoning. We define these layers as follows:

3.1 Selfhood (Subjective Perspective Awareness)​

  • Definition: The capacity of an AI system to explicitly recognize and communicate the viewpoint or role from which it is responding.
  • Impact of Absence: Without such awareness, the model generates responses from inconsistent or incoherent stances, undermining reliability and interpretive alignment across outputs.

3.2 Intent (Dynamic Value Structuring)​

  • Definition: A mechanism for generating, modulating, and prioritizing values and goals based on situational demands.
  • Impact of Absence: The system reacts uniformly to all inputs, failing to distinguish between ethical considerations or context-sensitive prioritization.

3.3 Consciousness (Meta-cognitive Mode Switching)​

  • Definition: The ability to monitor one’s current cognitive state and dynamically switch to a different interpretive or operational mode as needed.
  • Impact of Absence: The model cannot adapt to shifts in discourse, detect inconsistency in its own reasoning, or initiate self-corrective behavior.

In the absence of these three layers, even massively scaled LLMs are confined to producing what can only be described as “simulations of thought”—outputs that mimic reasoning without actually possessing it.

4. Cognitive Science and Neuroscientific Justification​

To further substantiate the necessity of these layers, we draw from foundational research in cognitive science and neuroscience. These works support the view that selfhood, intent, and consciousness are essential components of real-world cognition.

4.1 Transparent Self-Model Theory (Metzinger, 2003)​

Metzinger’s theory, as articulated in Being No One, posits that the human experience of subjectivity arises from internal self-models that are "transparent"—i.e., we do not perceive the model, only the world through it.

AI systems lack such internal self-representation. As a result, they cannot attribute their actions or decisions to any subjective perspective, nor can they provide accountable rationale for their responses.

4.2 Emotion as a Generator of Consciousness (Damasio, 1999)​

Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis identifies emotional states as crucial to decision-making and the emergence of consciousness. Emotions integrate bodily states and contextual awareness to inform value-laden responses.

Current AI systems operate without such mechanisms. They do not weigh consequences emotionally or prioritize actions based on contextual relevance, rendering them incapable of nuanced moral or situational judgment.

4.3 Global Workspace Theory of Consciousness (Dehaene et al., 2001)​

Dehaene’s theory frames consciousness as a global availability of information across competing cognitive modules. This coordination enables context-sensitive attention and adaptive control over mental processes.

Absent such a global workspace, AI systems are unable to reconcile conflicting information, shift reasoning strategies, or maintain continuity across multiple contexts—critical capabilities in complex reasoning environments.

5. Structural Collapse in Practice: Illustrative Metaphors from System Design​

To bridge abstract theory and implementation-level understanding, we present analogies from software engineering and data architecture that mirror the structural weaknesses seen in current AI systems.

5.1 Spaghetti Relational Structures in FileMaker​

In environments like FileMaker, poorly managed table occurrences (TOs) lead to indecipherable relational webs. Without structured relations, developers cannot trace data lineage or clarify functional roles.

AI systems that lack selfhood, perspective, and relational structure exhibit analogous behavior:

  • No traceability of output rationale
  • No role-based consistency
  • Semantic coherence degrades rapidly

5.2 Missing the "C" in MVC Architecture​

The MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern relies on a clear separation of concerns. When the Controller is omitted and logic is embedded in the View, systems become unmaintainable and logically fragmented.

Similarly, in AI:

  • View-like output generation dominates
  • No governing logic layer manages intent or context
  • The result is pattern-rich but structurally incoherent behavior

5.3 Vector Databases and Semantic Drift​

Modern AI applications increasingly employ vector databases to retrieve information based on semantic similarity. However, practical limitations include:

  • High similarity does not imply goal alignment
  • Vectors lack the capacity to represent standpoint or role
  • Memory outside the context window leads to fragmented understanding

Thus, even with accurate vector matching, the absence of relational and perspective structures results in interpretive failures.

6. Reframing Apple’s Findings: Structural Deficiency as Root Cause​

Apple’s paper observes that LRMs break down past a certain threshold of problem complexity. Rather than framing this as a scaling limitation, we interpret it as the logical outcome of structural deficiency.

6.1 Breakdown Due to Lack of Perspective Management​

Without the ability to specify or shift perspectives, models:

  • Cannot maintain coherent schemas over time
  • Fail to adapt reasoning as complexity increases

This leads to “perspective mismatch,” a critical failure mode in high-complexity tasks.

6.2 Inability to Dynamically Modulate Intent or Value​

In the absence of goal-weighting mechanisms:

  • All inputs are treated as equivalent
  • The model lacks discernment in prioritization

This results in brittle, non-strategic outputs in tasks that demand context-sensitive decision-making.

6.3 Lack of Meta-Cognition Prevents Self-Correction​

Humans routinely evaluate their own thinking, course-correcting as necessary. Without this loop:

  • AI cannot detect its own errors
  • No adaptive recalibration occurs mid-inference

Consequently, initial misinterpretations propagate unchecked, culminating in systemic reasoning failure.

7. Theoretical Corroboration: Compression, Nonlinearity, and Hierarchical Collapse​

These structural vulnerabilities are not merely speculative—they are echoed in theoretical models of information processing and network architecture.

7.1 Tishby’s Information Bottleneck Principle​

Tishby and Zaslavsky (2015) describe deep networks as optimizing mutual information between inputs and outputs while minimizing intermediary information. While efficient, this compression obscures the origin and intent behind features.

Without perspective tracking, meaning becomes decoupled from any interpretive frame—semantic noise masquerades as relevance.

7.2 Bengio’s Hierarchical Representation Learning and Unfolding Failures​

Bengio et al. (2013) propose that deep models learn hierarchical abstractions. However, without dynamic control of contextual expansion, these abstractions:

  • Overgeneralize beyond relevance
  • Collapse when interpretive resolution is required

This leads to semantic decoherence—loss of clarity about whose meaning is being represented.

7.3 Jaeger’s Echo State Networks and Nonlinear Drift​

Jaeger’s Echo State Networks exhibit rich dynamic behavior, but without external control, they risk:

  • Wandering through state space aimlessly
  • Generating outputs with no stable interpretation

This parallels current LLM behavior: complexity without constraint leads to interpretive entropy.

8. Strategic Implementation of the Personality Layers in AI​

Having established the structural deficiencies in current LLMs stemming from the absence of the three core layers—Selfhood, Intent, and Consciousness—we now outline a practical roadmap for implementing these components within AI architectures.

8.1 Selfhood: Perspective Control and Identity Disclosure​

Selfhood refers to a controller-level layer that enables an AI system to declare the point of view it is operating from.

Analogous to the Controller in the MVC pattern, the implementation of Selfhood requires:

  • Tagging and managing output to specify “which perspective” or “on whose behalf” the model is responding
  • Constructing APIs that allow perspective modules to be dynamically switched based on prompts
  • Logging outputs with explicit standpoint identifiers to support interpretability and traceability

This enables the development of a “self-model-augmented LLM” that can maintain semantic alignment and assume responsibility for its outputs.

8.2 Intent: Value-Based Prioritization and Emotional Framing​

Intent refers to a dynamic goal-prioritization layer that adjusts behavior based on contextual values.

This is not mere sentiment modulation, but includes weighted value decisions, constraint-aware optimization, and prioritization logic:

  • Defining vectors of intent within a goal-space and weighting them according to relevance
  • Pre-encoding ethical and social constraints as “emotional templates”
  • Allowing real-time adaptation of intent vectors in response to input and context

This supports the construction of socially aware AI systems capable of ethical adaptation and user-centered interaction.

8.3 Consciousness: Meta-Cognition and Mode Switching​

Consciousness is the meta-level circuitry that allows an AI to monitor its cognitive state and switch reasoning modes dynamically.

This involves three subsystems:

  1. State Monitoring: Continuous logging and awareness of active reasoning paths
  2. Deviation Detection: Identification of internal contradictions or divergence from historical patterns
  3. Mode Switching: Core mechanisms that interrupt and switch inference strategies or source modules

Such dynamic reconfigurability is essential for robustness in unpredictable or novel environments.

9. Integrating Theory with Practice: Towards Self-Evolving AI​

Drawing from practical development projects, we present a prototype architecture that incorporates these three personality layers into what we term a “local personality agent.”

9.1 Architecture of a Local Personality AI​

  • A “selfhood unit” initializes upon startup, representing the AI’s default perspective
  • On receiving prompts, a routing mechanism determines the appropriate standpoint and dynamically swaps the active persona module
  • Every response is logged with metadata describing the active persona, value framework, and inferred intent

This implementation improves transparency, accountability, and reproducibility in AI decision-making.

9.2 Meaning Stabilization via Fold-Based Structures​

Fold-based architectures (recursive, structured semantic unfolding) help counter semantic diffusion in vector-based AI models. Notable applications include:

  • FoldingNet: Reconstructing 3D structures from 2D grids using learned fold operations
  • Folding over Neural Networks: Defining network behavior as recursive data structure transformations
  • Consciousness Prior (Bengio): Modeling attention as a path along structured foldable latent spaces

These frameworks support controlled semantic unfolding, enabling models to track and reconstruct interpretive structure across inference steps.

10. General Conclusions and Forward Directions​

10.1 Rethinking the Problem: Not Scaling Limits, But Structural Absence​

The performance collapses observed in Apple's paper are not simply scale-related. Rather, they result from a fundamental lack of personality-layered architecture in current AI models.

In the absence of selfhood, intent, and consciousness, we are not scaling intelligence—we are scaling illusion.

10.2 Proposal: Towards Perspective-Rich and Intent-Aligned AI​

To move beyond the illusion of thinking, future AI must integrate the following components:

  • Selfhood: For perspective clarity and role accountability
  • Intent: For value prioritization and contextual alignment
  • Consciousness: For dynamic control and self-correction

These are not optional enhancements; they are structural preconditions for meaningful cognition.

10.3 What Makes AI Socially Viable?​

  • Explainability: Transparent rationale for outputs
  • Perspective Traceability: Clear identification of stance
  • Intentional Utility: Goal-aligned action grounded in adaptive relevance

Without these, AI cannot meaningfully integrate into ethical and social systems.

Appendix A: Self-Organizing AI Environment and Deployment Resources​

To enable practical exploration and community-driven replication of the proposed architecture, the author has published a working implementation framework: the Astro Quantaril Cloud API.

A.1 Open Science and Experimental Transparency​

This environment is offered as a pre-evaluative, experimental framework for testing personality-layered AI. It is not intended to be production-ready, but rather to promote open science, transparent design, and community replication.

Users assume full responsibility for execution, experimentation, and interpretation.

A.2 GitHub Repository​

  • Project Name: Astro Quantaril Cloud API
  • URL: https://github.com/HIPSTAR-IScompany/astro.quantaril.cloud
  • License: Apache License 2.0
  • Note: The name “Astro” in this project is not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation’s Astro framework. It is an independent open-source initiative.

A.3 Architecture and Deployment Stack​

  • Runtime Stack:

    • Docker / Docker Compose
    • Python 3.x compatible
    • Astro.js-based interface logic (Node.js not required)

  • Key Modules:

    • astro/: Perspective interface and persona logic
    • bearer/: Authentication and external API management
    • schemas/: Structural schema definitions for personality and intent
    • start.sh: Deployment automation script

A.4 Setup Instructions​

git clone https://github.com/HIPSTAR-IScompany/astro.quantaril.cloud.git
cd astro.quantaril.cloud
cp .env.template .env   # Customize as needed
docker-compose up --build

A web interface will be available locally for testing persona switching and perspective tracking in real time.

A.5 Use Cases and Future Work​

Suggested experimental tasks include:

  • Logging and analysis of selfhood state transitions
  • Intent vector tracing and value space calibration
  • Debugging recursive control loops for meta-cognition

Planned extensions include deeper integration of Fold theory and dynamic vector DB alignment to support scalable semantic structure.

Final Note​

Personality-layered AI represents not an enhancement but a paradigm shift—a rethinking of intelligence as perspective-bound, ethically situated, and meaning-centered. This framework and its implementation invite collaborative scrutiny and experimental evolution.