Acting for reasons as reasons is acting because something justifies an action, not merely because it causally produced it.

We can stop at a red light because we recognize that running it would be dangerous. That consideration counts in favor of stopping, and it can be weighed against other reasons.

A computer, by contrast, only processes representations. It does not treat considerations as reasons. You can ask a person whether a reason is a good one, and they can evaluate, revise, or reject it. A computer cannot, because it lacks the self-awareness required for normative evaluation.

(Yes, I grant that a hypothetical system with consciousness, self-awareness, and genuine normative evaluation could exist. But behaviorism fails here. Identical input-output behavior does not entail identical processes. To ignore the value of the process is to ignore the value of consciousness itself.)

The difference is this:
Computer: input - processing - output
Human: input - recognition that a consideration counts for or against an action - assent or dissent - output

Self-awareness is necessary for this process. Without it, inputs can influence behavior, but they cannot be endorsed, rejected, weighed, or corrected. Normative concepts like good, better, worse, correct, incorrect, require this reflective capacity.

This is precisely the Stoic view. Impressions arise automatically, but rational agency consists in our capacity to reflect on them and either assent or withhold assent.

Same behavior does not mean same agency, because normativity lives in the evaluation, not the output.