The trick: Scope Swap
WIRED's headline says an AI breakthrough made decades of computer science research irrelevant.
Its own text says researchers haven't independently verified the proofs, and Anthropic says the result says nothing about solving formulas in practice.
WIRED's headline says an AI breakthrough made decades of computer science research irrelevant.
Before you read on. Your call?
TRUE, BUT
10^10,000
Free with your account
Sign in for this free check.
This edition’s selected free story opens after sign-in.
The twist
Fortnow writes that ETH failing does not make its implications false.
There’s more to this story.
Membership opens the full investigation, the strongest counterargument and what to do with what you’ve learned.
30 days free, then A$89 a year. Payment card required. Cancel before the trial ends to avoid the first charge.
Review my 30-day free trial →- At sign-up: 30 days free. Payment card required. One introductory trial per customer.
- Your trial ends 30 days after you start. Unless you cancel before then in Account → Manage subscription, we charge A$89 for the first year. It renews automatically at A$89/yr until cancelled.
- You can ask for a full refund within 14 days after any annual payment, renewals included, with no reason needed, by emailing hello@bskiller.com. This voluntary refund does not limit your rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
By starting your trial, you agree to the Terms.
Inferno Tech Pty Ltd t/a BS Killer, ABN 27 647 413 474
Get tomorrow’s check free by email.
Couldn't check your access. That's on us.
The trick has a name
We call it Scope Swap: applies to far less than it sounds like. You'll see it again. Learn to spot it →
Receipts
- Supports wired.com:
An AI Breakthrough Has Made Decades of Computer Science Research ‘Irrelevant’
- Supports wired.com:
after AI showed that a 27-year-old hypothesis underpinning it is wrong
- Supports wired.com:
As far as I can tell, it’s now all irrelevant
- Context wired.com:
UC Santa Barbara professor Daniel Lokshtanov plans to join the effort
- Context wired.com:
Thore Husfeldt, head of the algorithms research group at the IT University of Copenhagen
- Context wired.com:
had spent most of this year thinking about one single problem in his subfield
- Refutes wired.com:
Researchers haven’t independently verified, let alone had time to fully understand, the AI-produced proofs
- Context wired.com:
make around 50 of his published papers either “pointless” or in need of a revisit
- Context wired.com:
While this particular result doesn’t directly affect cryptography
- Refutes raw.githubusercontent.com:
The result is purely asymptotic and says nothing about solving formulas in practice.
- Context raw.githubusercontent.com:
Lean checks the proofs, but no machine checks that this file says what the paper says
- Supports blog.computationalcomplexity.org:
I have not verified the proof myself, but it is safe to assume now that the exponential-time hypothesis is toast.
- Refutes blog.computationalcomplexity.org:
The fact that ETH and SETH fail doesn't mean their implications are false.
- Context ethdiscussion.blog:
Our involvement should not be taken as certification of the claim.
- Refutes nemock.substack.com:
does not improve on brute force unless the puzzle has more than 10^10,000 switches
Open the Receipts Pack → What each source proves, every figure traced, and what would change our verdict.
