OpenAI says its AI disproved the Exponential Time Hypothesis
Comments on “OpenAI says its AI disproved the Exponential Time Hypothesis”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
OpenAI says its internal models produced a deterministic algorithm that counts satisfying assignments of k-CNF formulas faster than the Exponential Time Hypothesis allows, which would refute ETH.
Why it ranked
No. 45 of 155 with a score of 0.63. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.95) and technical depth (0.84), lowest on practical relevance (0.35). The judges disagreed most on practical relevance (spread 0.47), so the story is marked contested.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Major claimed AI-produced theoretical CS result with Lean formalization; highly significant and new, but practical relevance to builders is low and the proof's verification is pending, with a useful explainer on limits.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A technically detailed explainer of a potentially landmark complexity result, with numerical interpretation and Lean-statement analysis. It is highly relevant and new, but the central proof remains under independent review and key constants are unspecified.
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
0.63total under rubric v2.2Contestedjudges differ by 0.47 on practical relevance
- Significance0.82
- Reader interest0.81
- Audience breadth0.52
- Practical relevance0.35
- Substantiated0.70
- Technical depth0.84
- New information0.95
- Counts against: Promotional0.09
- Counts against: Overclaim0.27
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 | 0.66 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.27 | +0.24 | +0.198 |
| Reader interest | 0.59 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.81 | 0.36 | +0.26 | +0.211 |
| Audience breadth | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.05 | +0.13 | +0.068 |
| Practical relevance | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.62 | 0.35 | 0.47 , above the contested threshold | +0.22 | +0.077 |
| Substantiated | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.09 | +0.05 | +0.035 |
| Technical depth | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.07 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| New information | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.06 | +0.05 | +0.048 |
| Promotional | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.07 | −0.19 | −0.017 |
| Overclaim | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.28 | −0.11 | −0.030 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.632 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.632 | ||||||
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/2026-10-28/45/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/45.svg" alt="Ranked #45 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 2 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.