I think you are unfairly downvoted for this, probably because I have just as strong opinion in the other direction: I see GPT (especially -4) as a kind of "killer Prolog-style inference engine".

How does Prolog work? You:

* pass it some predicates * specify rules about what the relationships mean and how various things are computed from the data in predicates * query a variable * answer pops out.

How can GPT do this task? You:

* pass it some predicates (structured machine-readable syntax or natural-language sentences) * specify rules (in natural-language sentences, though it helps to iterate on the wording a bit to make the rules more rigid, and more likely to provide the correct output ~every time) - you don't normally need to specify relationships explicitly because GPT can usually figure it out * include some additional "massaging" wording to get it reproducibly outputting the kind of result you want * query a variable (tell it what to find out/infer from the data) * answer pops out (in human-readable language or structured syntax).

In some ways, they are very much alike. And GPT is much more natural to program with than Prolog.