OpenAI announced solutions to three major math problems that have puzzled researchers for years. One of these was an unexpected challenge to the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH), a long-standing principle in computer science that shapes our understanding of computational difficulty. As with previous proof releases from the frontier lab, the scientific community reacted with both excitement and concern. Anthropic mathematician Levent Alpöge suggested that OpenAI's solutions might be based on existing work, and soon after, Anthropic released its own refutation of ETH. However, OpenAI's approach is changing. This time, the lab tailored its release strategy for each of the three disciplines: mathematicians received the work on GitHub; computer scientists formed a working group, requested public sharing of the proofs, and asked OpenAI to fund a conference for discussion; physicists formed a working group to decide how their result would be released. MIT Professor Ryan Williams is the computer scientist leading his field's response to the new finding. Williams, whose research focuses on computational complexity, has criticized OpenAI's approach before, calling its October proof release a "DDOS attack on mathematicians." The lab asked him to help interpret the solution, along with UC San Diego computer scientists Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, who first published the ETH in 1999. Their first step was to release an open letter calling for feedback from scientists interested in these problems and a discussion of norms around AI contributions to their work.

Are you down with P vs NP? The ETH is part of a broader class of problems known as P vs NP, which has animated computer science and many other fields for decades. Simply put, researchers are trying to understand if any problem whose solution can be easily verified (NP) can also be easily solved (P). A simple example is the game Sudoku: Once a solution to a puzzle is in place, it can be quickly verified, but finding the solution is time-consuming. That dynamic is true across a range of important problems, and the insight underpins cryptographic systems: When you have the key to an encoded message, you can reveal it, but actually cracking an effective code takes too long to be useful. However, scientists have yet to prove whether that is always true. "P = NP is saying that, not only can you verify Sudoku solutions when they exist, you can just generate them," Williams said. "P = NP is asserting that this is true for every single problem you can verify quickly—if you can verify it quickly, you can solve it quickly. So this just seems too good to be true."

That's why most scientists assume that P ≠ NP. ETH provided evidence for that. It basically says that even the fastest computer algorithm needs exponentially more time to find a solution as the number of variables grows in a specific class of tricky logic puzzles. The claims from OpenAI and Anthropic are that their models have come up with algorithms that solve those puzzles in "sub-exponential" time, meaning faster than the speeds previously thought possible. If true, they may have proven the ETH to be false—refuted it, in scientific terms—and maybe opened up a path for algorithms that generally perform P = NP. "Every computer scientist should probably put a little more weight on the plausibility of P = NP, but one's weight may vary," Williams said. "I do think that it kind of calls into question a lot of the intuitions that we thought we had about … how tractable [hard NP problems] are. I also think that this is probably not the final answer either. I don't think that OpenAI's algorithm could possibly be the best algorithm you can get."

The work ahead for computer scientists: The durability of ETH has led to it being included in many scientific papers over the past decade that will need to be revisited if the AI labs' claims that they've proven it wrong hold up, Williams said. "This is partly why I was asking or pushing OpenAI to support a conference on this—it's going to affect many researchers' work, and we need to figure out, okay, what happens next; besides understanding the algorithms, we need to understand what the foundations should be that we had before," he said. Before scientific concerns, there are cybersecurity questions. Williams said that an improved algorithm could imply that cryptographic systems relying on certain key sizes could be considered broken. So one of the first questions he asked OpenAI science lead Dan Roberts "was if they had checked that this affects any crypto systems … is anything insecure now. And apparently, they checked, and they were reasonably confident that this didn't … imply any breaks."

This new AI paradigm of scientific discovery is still a work in progress, but Williams says he is optimistic despite real concerns, particularly about training the next generation of scientists. Being a computer scientist who does high-level math has perhaps made the adjustment easier for him than for pure mathematicians. Still, he says AI is "forcing people to be a little more ambitious about the kind of work that they do, and to think more deeply about, okay, if all the things I used to work on are now low-hanging fruit for AI, how can I raise the bar for the kind of scientific questions I want to ask."