正在改变与想要改变世界的人，都在 虎嗅APP
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.
，这一点在51吃瓜中也有详细论述
In phase2, we have a simple linked list;
驱使动物伤害他人的，依照本法第五十一条的规定处罚。