If a large language model can solve >90% of clues from Financial Times cryptic crosswords then yes otherwise no. Crossword layout as context is allowed.
Here's an example FT crossword:
For example, 2 down is "Giant pig, including tail, served up (7)". Pig is "hog", put tail inside to get "htailog" then reverse it to get "goliath".
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ10 | |
| 2 | Ṁ9 | |
| 3 | Ṁ6 | |
| 4 | Ṁ5 | |
| 5 | Ṁ4 |
People are also trading
@duck_master hi, o3 got 10 ft clues correct in a row and I felt that's sufficient. I admit it's a small sample.
https://chatgpt.com/share/680129c9-54e0-8002-8f7e-136a8a757b2c
In isolation or given the crossword layout as context?
I would argue that 90% of the challenge is eliminated by having the crossword as context (number of letters, positions of letters). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many cryptic crosswords could be solved without the clues - just the crossword itself.
Without the crossword layout, I think there is a high degree of ambiguity and 90% might be impossible.