Turns out, OpenAI might be really good at computers.
On Monday, the company said it punctured the Exponential Time Hypothesis, or ETH, the nearly 30-year-old belief in the computer science community that some logic problems get overwhelmingly time-consuming as they grow. Hours later, Anthropic released its own research refuting ETH.
OpenAI said it had asked a group of outside computer scientists to organize an open review of its claim. The researchers have highlighted that their involvement is not an endorsement.
If the AI labs’ announcements hold, they would likely reopen the hunt for increasingly capable algorithms — something that computer scientists had largely assumed couldn’t get much better.
The ultra-nerdy claim has been a huge topic of conversation across social media and in techie circles. Here’s how some of the thought leaders have reacted to OpenAI’s announcement:
Ryan Williams, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT
Williams, one of the three independent algorithm design experts who are researching OpenAI’s claims, has not certified the company’s results.
He wrote on X that, if OpenAI’s claim turns out to be true, the fresh findings “should make every computer scientist put at least a little more weight on the possibility of P = NP,” making the company closer to another potential $1 million Millennium Prize Problem.
In more practical terms, Williams said the claimed breakthrough could lead to “faster algorithms.”
He has previously said that he doesn’t believe in ETH.
Gary Marcus, emeritus professor at NYU
Marcus, a frequent AI skeptic, wrote that this could be “a big deal if correct,” on X.
John D. Cook, Ph.D. and tech consultant in applied mathematics
In a blog post, Cook said OpenAI’s claims — while impressive — didn’t finally answer computer science’s biggest open question.
“The status of P = NP is still unknown,” he wrote. “While 3-SAT does not take exponential time, it still takes more than polynomial time as far as anyone knows.”
Joshua Fonseca Rivera, AI Safety Research Fellow at Anthropic
Rivera wrote on X that OpenAI’s fresh claim was a reminder that humans could have underestimated a computer’s intelligence.
“The bitter lesson should make this unsurprising,” he wrote. “I know this logically, but… wow, we really don’t know anything.”
Timothy Gowers, professeur titulaire at Collège de France and Fields Medal-winning mathematician
Gowers wrote a blunt take on X about the development: “Very surprising and consequential that it is false.”
Dan Shipper, CEO at Every
Shipper, the AI-pilled chief executive at a tech startup, wrote on X what everyone else was thinking…
“I regret not getting a Ph.D. in frontier math,” he said. “(Not that I ever considered getting one but still).”
