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.
人 民 网 版 权 所 有 ，未 经 书 面 授 权 禁 止 使 用
，更多细节参见搜狗输入法2026
这让整个大模型行业都在重新审视自家路线，包括月之暗面。从这时候开始，其放弃了单纯做正确的事情，而是做自己更擅长的事情。
CST — 10 p.m.
吳先生說問卷流於空泛，「現在不可以令我想到下一步怎樣做。」