That's not a tautology. That's the summary of the argument itself. If you want to know more, then a good reason why it can't be reasoning is that there is no evaluation of the truth value of any statement at any point, only the likelihood of the statement being found in the training set. This evaluation has no relationship with truth.
If no statement is ever evaluated, it's not logical reasoning, because logical reasoning requires the evaluation of truth values of statements.
> there is no evaluation of the truth value of any statement at any point
You could argue that the attention part of the network is some form of truth validation of the next predicted token? But indeed, the current chat interfaces don't change their previous text output retroactively.
Still, I am not really convinced. If we assume a human can reason, what does "evaluation of the truth value" mean? Thinking about something? This is still performed with our implicit mental model of the world, coming from shadows on a cave's wall, right?
If no statement is ever evaluated, it's not logical reasoning, because logical reasoning requires the evaluation of truth values of statements.