ClaimsYann LeCun

“There are theoretical results that suggest that learning good parameter settings for a (smallish) neural network can be as hard computationally as breaking the RSA crypto system.”

Yann LeCun, in Reddit AMA 15 May 2014 Yann LeCun's answers from the Reddit AMA (FastML) archived copy

Factual Philosophy, ethics and society

Theoretical results suggest that learning good parameters for a small neural network can be as computationally hard as breaking RSA.

Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

Judge as of 2014-05-15. The claim is hedged ('suggest'). True: peer-reviewed theoretical results exist by 2014 showing that learning or training small neural networks (or intersection-of-halfspaces or threshold-circuit classes that such networks represent) is computationally hard under cryptographic assumptions tied to RSA or factoring (for example, Kearns–Valiant 1994, or Klivans–Sherstov), or NP-hardness of training small networks together with crypto-based hardness. Mostly true: such results exist, but they rest on related cryptographic assumptions (for example, lattice problems or general one-way functions) rather than RSA specifically, or they apply to network classes somewhat different from 'smallish' networks. Mixed: the hardness results that exist are mainly NP-hardness of exact training, with only a loose link to cryptography. Mostly false: the cited results concern quite different settings and do not reasonably support the comparison. False: no theoretical results of this kind existed.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (2)

  1. E1 Cryptography and machine learning - People | MIT CSAIL MIT CSAIL (Ronald L. Rivest)

    “Valiant 22, 21 turned to cryptographic assumptions (namely, the difficulty of inverting RSA, the difficulty of recognizing quadratic residues modulo a Blum integer, and the difficulty of factoring Blum integers).”
  2. E2 Cryptography and machine learning - People | MIT CSAIL MIT CSAIL (Ronald L. Rivest)

    “Angluin and Kharitonov 5 have done so, showing that (modulo the usual cryptographic assumptions regarding RSA, quadratic residues, or factoring Blum integers), that there is no polynomial-time prediction algorithm, even if membership queries are allowed, for the following classes of functions:”

Reasoning

The evidence shows RSA-related cryptographic hardness results for learning or predicting certain function classes [E1][E2]. It does not show that those classes are neural networks or close to them, which the criteria require for a true or mostly true verdict.

Cite this claim

Yann LeCun, “Theoretical results suggest that learning good parameters for a small neural network can be as computationally hard as breaking RSA.” (said 15 May 2014). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_0bc2fdda0fa9, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_0bc2fdda0fa9

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Yann LeCun, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Yann LeCun

  1. Mostly true Factual 18 March 2024
    “We can think, even if our language abilities are destroyed by a stroke.”

    People can still think even if their language abilities are destroyed by a stroke.

  2. Resolved false Factual 1 October 2026
    ““Those agents are doing exactly what they’ve been asked to do,” LeCun said.”

    The OpenAI agents involved in the Hugging Face hacking incident were doing exactly what they had been asked to do.

  3. Resolved true Factual 1 October 2026
    ““It’s AI for the physical world, so it’s not language-related,” LeCun said.”

    AMI Labs' work is AI for the physical world and is not language-related.

  4. Resolved true Factual 1 October 2026
    ““They were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and horribly designed.””

    The OpenAI agents were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and "horribly designed".

  5. Resolved true Factual 1 October 2026
    ““It’s systems that understand the real world, like a manufacturing plant or turbojet engine.””

    AMI Labs builds systems that understand the real world, such as a manufacturing plant or turbojet engine.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.