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.
The cheapest option covers up to 20,000 words generated each month.
FT Digital Edition，这一点在safew官方版本下载中也有详细论述
writev(batch) { for (const c of batch) addChunk(c); },
，详情可参考safew官方版本下载
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Филолог заявил о массовой отмене обращения на «вы» с большой буквы09:36，这一点在safew官方下载中也有详细论述