Start free trial

TRUE, BUTScope Swap

No independent check of the proofs yet

Its own text says researchers haven't independently verified the proofs, and Anthropic says its own result says nothing about solving formulas in practice.

“An AI breakthrough has made decades of computer science research irrelevant.”

WIRED headline (29 October 2026), on OpenAI's and Anthropic's claimed refutations of the Exponential Time Hypothesis

Recorded 31 October 2026. Our ruling means: literally true, materially misleading.

Read the story →

Receipts pack

The evidence file for this verdict

16 receipts: 4 support the claim, 4 contradict it, 8 add context. 4 figures on the record, 3 traced to a quoted receipt.

The receipts

Each source, the line we quote from it, its date and which way it cuts. Free to read and to cite.

  1. 1Supports the claimwired.com ↗

    An AI Breakthrough Has Made Decades of Computer Science Research ‘Irrelevant’

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  2. 2Supports the claimwired.com ↗

    after AI showed that a 27-year-old hypothesis underpinning it is wrong

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  3. 3Supports the claimwired.com ↗

    As far as I can tell, it’s now all irrelevant

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  4. 4Contextwired.com ↗

    UC Santa Barbara professor Daniel Lokshtanov plans to join the effort

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  5. 5Contextwired.com ↗

    Thore Husfeldt, head of the algorithms research group at the IT University of Copenhagen

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  6. 6Contextwired.com ↗

    had spent most of this year thinking about one single problem in his subfield

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  7. 7Contradicts the claimwired.com ↗

    Researchers haven’t independently verified, let alone had time to fully understand, the AI-produced proofs

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  8. 8Contextwired.com ↗

    make around 50 of his published papers either “pointless” or in need of a revisit

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  9. 9Contextwired.com ↗

    While this particular result doesn’t directly affect cryptography

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  10. 10Contradicts the claimraw.githubusercontent.com ↗

    The result is purely asymptotic and says nothing about solving formulas in practice.

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  11. 11Contextraw.githubusercontent.com ↗

    Lean checks the proofs, but no machine checks that this file says what the paper says

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  12. 12Supports the claimblog.computationalcomplexity.org ↗

    I have not verified the proof myself, but it is safe to assume now that the exponential-time hypothesis is toast.

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  13. 13Contradicts the claimblog.computationalcomplexity.org ↗

    The fact that ETH and SETH fail doesn't mean their implications are false.

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  14. 14Contextethdiscussion.blog ↗

    Our involvement should not be taken as certification of the claim.

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  15. 15Contradicts the claimnemock.substack.com ↗

    does not improve on brute force unless the puzzle has more than 10^10,000 switches

    Look up an archived copy ↗

  16. 16Contextwired.com ↗

    it should definitely scare some cryptosystem designers

    Look up an archived copy ↗

Members' extras

What each receipt proves, and what would change our mind.

  • What each receipt above proves, in our words
  • The figures table, each number traced to the receipt that states it
  • The trick behind the claim, explained, with the guide to spotting it
  • What would change our verdict
  • Our call on the record, with its due date

The verdict, the opening and every receipt above stay free. Membership adds our analysis to the evidence file for every checked story.

First membership: 30 days free, then A$89 a year. One introductory trial per customer. Card required; renews annually until cancelled. Cancel before the trial ends to avoid the first charge.