Maybe we can think up a (personal) rule we can follow?

A naked "natural intelligences do this too" might be a bit too short to be useful. But if we can add when/where, cite papers, or show ways in which the parallel operates, then it might be useful.

Compare, eg, talking about a robot arm, and someone goes "a natural arm does this too". You can tell about the fact that it has the same degrees of freedom in the same places, or how this pertains to inverse kinematics, or etc...

Same way here, "this happens to be how natural intelligences seem to solve this too! According to Foo, Bar, Baz et al (2026) the gadget is always twiddled beforehand in macaque apes. " or "Same for natural intelligence: I've noticed I use the same general algorithm myself. I've always considered this the correct way to do translation between languages". --

A more concrete example of a useful answer here.

Natural intelligence does this too! When given the question "explain your reasoning" humans are indeed quite prone to post-hoc confabulation. [1]

[1] https://home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/482/nisbett%20s... "Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes" (this citation is quite old and may have been superseded, mostly just to illustrate how the rule might work)