(With regards to the quoted text, "it" referred to natural language, not ChatGPT. You were questioning the sufficiency of natural language, not whether ChatGPT

(With regards to the quoted text, "it" referred to natural language, not ChatGPT. You were questioning the sufficiency of natural language, not whether ChatGPT could do those things.) With regards to ChatGPT: Given a set of previously unseen axioms it can (sometimes) make a previously unseen and logically consistent prediction. This is what I have observed. Whether this is true logical reasoning, truly new ideas, or just an arrangement of statistically plausible characters that belies its lack of understanding is a metaphysical question akin to the Chinese room.