What smart people are saying about OpenAI's Exponential Time Hypothesis claim

OpenAI says it solved a famously hard computer problem. Again. Bloomberg/Getty Images 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 MITWilliams, 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 NYUMarcus, 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 mathematicsIn 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 AnthropicRivera 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 mathematicianGowers wrote a blunt take on X about the development: "Very surprising and consequential that it is false."Dan Shipper, CEO at EveryShipper, 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)." Read next Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know Business Insider tells the innovative stories you want to know Ben Shimkus is a reporter for the Business News desk. He writes about cars, transportation, retail, and jobs. Ben's reporting has appeared in Rolling Stone, The Verge, Automotive News, USA Today, AutoBody News, LGBTQ Nation, TopSpeed, and Out Magazine. He's also held staff writing positions at The U.S. Sun and the Daily Mail. He graduated from NYU with a Master's in journalism in 2024. Email Ben at bshimkus@insider.com or message him privately on Signal at bshimkus.41. OpenAI AI