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.
8点1氪丨玛莎拉蒂母公司全年净亏损1800亿元人民币；男童发育不良新药引爆股价，长春高新回应；德国总理默茨参访宇树科技。关于这个话题，heLLoword翻译官方下载提供了深入分析
ВсеГосэкономикаБизнесРынкиКапиталСоциальная сфераАвтоНедвижимостьГородская средаКлимат и экологияДеловой климат，推荐阅读谷歌浏览器【最新下载地址】获取更多信息
美國總統特朗普回應赫斯言論時稱其為「真正的輸家」，而谷愛凌是公開聲援赫斯及其他發聲運動員的數名選手之一。