Understanding the Exponential Time Hypothesis, and OpenAI's claim it is false
Comments on “Understanding the Exponential Time Hypothesis, and OpenAI's claim it is false”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
OpenAI published a manuscript on 26 October 2026 titled "The Exponential Time Hypothesis is False," credited only to "OpenAI" and reportedly produced by an unreleased internal model, with a version of its main theorem checked in the Lean proof assistant.
Why it ranked
No. 28 of 155 with a score of 0.65. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.92) and technical depth (0.84), lowest on practical relevance (0.44). The judges disagreed most on reader interest (spread 0.41), so the story is marked contested.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Major claimed complexity result from an AI lab, verified in Lean but pending expert review; tutorial-style explainer with strong technical depth, though practical impact for builders is limited.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A technically deep explainer of a potentially landmark complexity-theory claim, carefully separating formal verification, informal assertions, and implications. It is highly relevant and novel, though independent validation is pending and much evidence is reported rather than primary.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.65total under rubric v2.2Contestedjudges differ by 0.41 on reader interest
- Significance0.78
- Reader interest0.80
- Audience breadth0.67
- Practical relevance0.44
- Substantiated0.62
- Technical depth0.84
- New information0.92
- Counts against: Promotional0.07
- Counts against: Overclaim0.29
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.63 | 0.80 | 0.92 | 0.78 | 0.29 | +0.24 | +0.188 |
| Reader interest | 0.54 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.80 | 0.41 , above the contested threshold | +0.26 | +0.207 |
| Audience breadth | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.67 | 0.14 | +0.13 | +0.087 |
| Practical relevance | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.68 | 0.44 | 0.38 | +0.22 | +0.098 |
| Substantiated | 0.59 | 0.55 | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.17 | +0.05 | +0.031 |
| Technical depth | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.11 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| New information | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.14 | +0.05 | +0.046 |
| Promotional | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.07 | −0.19 | −0.014 |
| Overclaim | 0.44 | 0.35 | 0.08 | 0.29 | 0.36 | −0.11 | −0.032 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.653 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.653 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/28/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/28.svg" alt="Ranked #28 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.