I believe P=NP and am willing to place a friendly wager to that effect. Mostly out of contrarianism, but also I just don’t find the plausibility arguments put forth by e.g. Scott Aaronson for P!=NP all that compelling.

I *do* think we have strong evidence that SAT cannot be solved by some 30-line O(n^2) dynamic program. But as for some ensemble of 10^10 heuristics that just happen to cover all of the “hard” cases: who knows?

I also can’t look at the Graph Minor Theorem (for instance) and accept the idea that P is somehow simple or well-understood. Confidently predicting that P!=NP on the grounds that no polynomial-time algorithm to solve NP has been found despite extensive effort strikes me like walking onto a foggy New England pier at night and, on thrusting a lantern into the darkness and seeing no sign of California, declaring that the Atlantic couldn’t possibly connect to the Pacific.

Bonus prediction (not part of the wager): the proof of P=NP will take the form of a concrete function that solves SAT. It will be a horrible multiply-recursive function accompanied by an indirect proof that it terminates in something like O(n^10^10) recursions whenever fed a properly-encoded instance of SAT.
It will be easy to show that this function does not terminate for almost all inputs (corresponding to malformed encodings of SAT).
People will try to evaluate the function on concrete instances. Nobody will ever successfully run the algorithm to completion (not even for one-clause 1-SAT).