4 ms·
Actually, no! Or at least, the budget they used (<$100k at retail prices to train the model) is well within the feasible range for other research institutions.
by curiousllama 6y ago
Actually, no! Or at least, the budget they used (<$100k at retail prices to train the model) is well within the feasible range for other research institutions.
In other words, it's less like GPT3 and more like ImageNet.
- whimsicalism 6y agoI don't know - tens of thousands per train is not accessible for most academic institutions when you consider the necessity of ablation studies, experimentation, etc.
- anchpop 6y agoFor a topic like protein folding, it should be
- whimsicalism 6y ago> For a topic like protein folding, it should be Well, I've worked in some academic deep research labs and they did not have the money to do the experiments they wanted to do.
- lacksconfidence 6y agoIs the cost to train really the relevant metric for developing this? It seems like the salary's involved are probably at least 10x whatever they spent on hardware.
- kevincox 6y agoAdditionally the training test of all of the models during development.
- TomJansen 6y ago>Is the cost to train really the relevant metric for developing this? Yes, because they must release sufficient information for others to recreate the AI model, according to the rules of entering CASP.
- lacksconfidence 6y agoI was replying in the context of the grand parent: > Did AlphaFold2 also have the biggest budget? :) And then the parent > Actually, no! Or at least, the budget they used (<$100k at retail prices to train the model) is well within the feasible range for other research institutions. I'm not sure how the cost of replicating the model in the future is relevant in this context. We appear to be discussing the cost of developing this model from scratch, such as what it would have taken an alternate team to create and submit this if DeepMind never got involved.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]