换句话说，蒸馏能帮你更快「热身」，要真正到达顶级水平，还是得靠自己跑 RL。
圖像來源，Getty Images
，详情可参考WPS下载最新地址
ВсеИнтернетКиберпреступностьCoцсетиМемыРекламаПрессаТВ и радиоФактчекинг
Фото: Scott Peterson / Getty Images
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.