>They've overstated their case a bit. Saying that deep learning will cost $11,000 and need 14 days on this data set is not reasonable. After glancing at the pa

>They've overstated their case a bit. Saying that deep learning will cost $11,000 and need 14 days on this data set is not reasonable. After glancing at the paper they're criticising, I really wonder how they arrived at these insane figures. From what I saw, they were mostly using stuff like MLPs with a handful layers at O(100) neurons at most. Yeah, if you put a hundred million parameter transformer in there you will train forever (and waste tons of compute since that would be complete overkill), but not with simple perceptrons. I don't know the extent of the data, but given these architectures I very much doubt a practical model would take this long to train - even on a CPU - given that you could run a statistical ensemble in 5 minutes.