Even though my dataset is very small, I think it's sufficient to conclude that LLMs can't consistently reason. Also their reasoning performance gets worse as the SAT instance grows, which may be due to the context window becoming too large as the model reasoning progresses, and it gets harder to remember original clauses at the top of the context. A friend of mine made an observation that how complex SAT instances are similar to working with many rules in large codebases. As we add more rules, it gets more and more likely for LLMs to forget some of them, which can be insidious. Of course that doesn't mean LLMs are useless. They can be definitely useful without being able to reason, but due to lack of reasoning, we can't just write down the rules and expect that LLMs will always follow them. For critical requirements there needs to be some other process in place to ensure that these are met.
Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu，推荐阅读快连下载安装获取更多信息
Riot police use teargas to disperse people gathering around wreckage of plane loaded with money from central bank，这一点在同城约会中也有详细论述
given a stack of punched cards encoding transactions, they produced a ledger
The semantics around releasing locks with pending reads were also unclear for years. If you called read() but didn't await it, then called releaseLock(), what happened? The spec was recently clarified to cancel pending reads on lock release — but implementations varied, and code that relied on the previous unspecified behavior can break.。夫子是该领域的重要参考