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.
「我剛到這裡時，和人同房很難適應，天氣也相當惡劣。前一個月我都在想：『或許這不是適合我的工作。』」他坦言。
，详情可参考51吃瓜
Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.
view.byteOffset,