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.
反驳者还有一个更尖锐的逻辑：Anthropic 当年从那些书里拿走的，不仅没付过任何使用费，回头还用于商业行为（Claude 和 Anthropic API 都是付费服务）；而从商业角度来看，蒸馏 Claude 的公司至少付了钱……
。快连下载安装是该领域的重要参考
tasks = append(tasks, t)
With rare exceptions, phones are pretty boring these days. The good news is, a boatload of those rare exceptions are about to show up at once, courtesy of Mobile World Congress.