They can't reason about most other relations, though. They are pretty good at reasoning about the subset of causation that humans talk about a lot; but the stuff that's so obvious we don't write about it, half the time they can't do even when hand-held through the process.
Step 1: cover your table in blue paint. Step 2: empty a bag of confetti on the table, spreading it evenly in a thin layer, one confetto thick. Step 3: dip a bowling ball in neon green glue. Step 4: roll the bowling ball over the confetti until it is fully covered. Step 5: leave to dry. Step 6: coat with a layer of varnish. Step 7: leave to dry. Step 8: visit a 10-pin bowling alley with white bowling pins. Step 9: use your confetti-coated bowling ball to get a strike. Question: what colour are the first, fifth and ninth bowling pins after you have got a strike?
Pretty simple scenario. Doesn't require complex reasoning. Go on, write out the answer. Now see what a GPT-style system says. (Pick whichever you like: I didn't engineer this for any particular one. They're universally bad at this.)
These systems cannot reason.