I wanted to test this claim with SAT problems. Why SAT? Because solving SAT problems require applying very few rules consistently. The principle stays the same even if you have millions of variables or just a couple. So if you know how to reason properly any SAT instances is solvable given enough time. Also, it's easy to generate completely random SAT problems that make it less likely for LLM to solve the problem based on pure pattern recognition. Therefore, I think it is a good problem type to test whether LLMs can generalize basic rules beyond their training data.
Материалы по теме:
Steven Frank, the co-founder of Panic, wrote this in 1999, with similar themes:。搜狗输入法2026是该领域的重要参考
Сайт Роскомнадзора атаковали18:00
。关于这个话题，爱思助手下载最新版本提供了深入分析
"domain": "feishu",
Что думаешь? Оцени!。关于这个话题，旺商聊官方下载提供了深入分析