hashta

I used chatgpt's web app and I have pro subscription.

That's interesting because my experience has been almost the opposite. A few months ago I tested Gemini on converting screenshots of tables from PDF files into CSV. I tried it on several different tables and it got every one right. It consistently outperformed ChatGPT.

I think a lot of deep learning is compositional generalization. Models learn reusable pieces (abstractions, styles, procedures, constraints, etc) and recombine them in ways that may never have appeared as a whole in the training data. So even if the ingredients come from past data the final composition can still be novel in a meaningful sense

I think I trained models with #params >> #training examples for hundreds of epochs, but still don't recall seeing that loss curve on real data. Curious if others have seen it with larger models or much longer runs

Interesting read. I remember the grokking paper when it came out but I don't think I've ever seen that classic grokking loss curve in my own hands on real data. Curious if others have seen it more often in practice

this also addresses something else ...

apple to some users "are you leaving for android because of their ai assistant? don’t leave we are bringing it to iphone"

I’m a long time Android user and almost switched to iPhone last year. Mostly because I use macOS and wanted better integration and also wanted to try it. Another big factor was the AI assistant. I stayed with Android because I think Google will win here. Apple will probably avoid losing users to their biggest competitor by reaching rough parity using the same models

It’s literally called "SimpleFold". But that’s not really my point, from your earlier comment (".. go through all the complexities first to find the generalized and simpler formulations"), I got the impression you thought the simplicity came purely from architectural insights. My point was just that to compare apples to apples, a model claiming "simpler but just as good" should ideally train on the same kind of data as AF or at least acknowledge very clearly that substantial amount of its training data comes from AF.

I’m not trying to knock the work, I think it’s genuinely cool and a great engineering result. I just wanted to flag that nuance for readers who might not have the time or background to spot it, and I get that part of the "simple/simpler" messaging is also about attracting attention which clearly worked!

To people outside the field, the title/abstract can make it sound like folding is just inherently simple now, but this model wouldn’t exist without the large synthetic dataset produced by the more complex AF. The "simple" architecture is still using the complex model indirectly through distillation. We didn’t really extract new tricks to design a simpler model from scratch, we shifted the complexity from the model space into the data space (think GPT-5 => GPT-5-mini, there’s no GPT-5-mini without GPT-5)

I’m not sure AF3’s performance would hold up if it hadn’t been trained on data from AF2 which itself bakes in a lot of inductive bias like equivariance

One caveat that’s easy to miss: the "simple" model here didn’t just learn folding from raw experimental structures. Most of its training data comes from AlphaFold-style predictions. Millions of protein structures that were themselves generated by big MSA-based and highly engineered models.

It’s not like we can throw away all the inductive biases and MSA machinery, someone upstream still had to build and run those models to create the training corpus.

An effective way that usually increases accuracy is to use an ensemble of capable models that are trained independently (e.g., gemini, gpt-4o, qwen). If >x% of them have the same output, accept it, otherwise reject and manually review

To both questions above, just simple averaging of the logits (classification) or raw outputs (regressions) usually works well. If I had to guess why people don't use this approach often in kaggle competitions is the relative difficulty of training an ensemble of NNs. Also, NNs are a bit more sensitive to the type of features used and their distribution relative to decision trees (DTs).

Ensemble models work well because they reduce both bias & variance errors. Like DTs, NNs have low bias errors and high variance errors when used individually. The variance error drops as you use more learners (DTs/NNs) in the ensemble. Also, the more diverse the learners, the lower the overall error.

Simple ways to promote the diversity of the NNs in the ensemble is to start their weights from different random seeds and train each one of them on a random sample from the overall training set (say 70-80% w/o replacement).

I have a lot of experience working with both families of models. If you use an ensemble of 10 NNs, they outperform well-optimized tree-based models such as XGBoost & RFs.