Well, not exactly regular NP, as was pointed out. I guess NP complete would make more sense. Although the set of problems that are easier to validate than solve reaches much further than NP complete; see basically any Σ in the polynomial hierarcy. It's about the existential quantifier.

Nitpicking on your nitpick: you mean NP-complete, not NP (for instance, any P problem is an NP problem, but NP-complete problems are probably not P)

You’re correct, but I’m gonna have to nitpick your nitpick and say that NP-complete problems have not been proven (or disproven) to be in P. “Probably not” is an opinion.

It's a well-informed opinion that is based on the fact that what we do know indicates[1] that, probably, P≠NP.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Reasons_to...

Publish a paper with the mathematical proof. “probably not” is neither here nor there.

The main argument from your link is nobody has found an efficient algorithm for any of the 3,000+ studied problems after all this time.

And yet it’s also true that in the same span of time, nobody has been able to prove the that it’s not, either. No matter how hard they have tried.

“probably not” is just an opinion. I’ll wait for the formal proof. Till then it simply is not known whether or not.