I should add a clarification about the phrase “understanding what is in it” in the previous comment, which I realized is ambiguous: obviously, if you care to distinguish what is present vs absent in a paper, you need to read it. But if you care about understanding any new mathematical content it may have (as applies to this case, as I've been saying in this entire thread — if you, like Prof. Harvey care about a potential o(n log n) algorithm, whether or not such an algorithm is contained in OpenAI's paper per se), then it is neither necessary nor (given how it's written) a good idea.
As I said in the linked comment, it does not matter whether the idea came from OpenAI's paper, or was hallucinated by Fable, or was arrived at by the reader while reading a potential nonsensical explanation from Fable: the main message is that the “o(n log n) bound is plausible” and it is valuable to have it come from a human expert.
As I said in the linked comment, it does not matter whether the idea came from OpenAI's paper, or was hallucinated by Fable, or was arrived at by the reader while reading a potential nonsensical explanation from Fable: the main message is that the “o(n log n) bound is plausible” and it is valuable to have it come from a human expert.