Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That quote is from 2018.

Here is what Mohammed AlQuraishi said in 2020:

CASP14 #s just came out and they’re astounding—DeepMind looks to have solved protein structure prediction. Median GDT_TS went from 68.5 (CASP13) to 92.4!!!! Cf. their 2nd best CASP13 struct scored 92.8 (out of 100). Median RMSD is 2.1Å. I think it's over [0]

and

“I think it’s fair to say this will be very disruptive to the protein-structure-prediction field. I suspect many will leave the field as the core problem has arguably been solved,” he says. “It’s a breakthrough of the first order, certainly one of the most significant scientific results of my lifetime.” [1]

[0] https://twitter.com/MoAlQuraishi/status/1333383634649313280

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4



I can't square this with the actual competition results. There are tons of targets where AlphaFold2 didn't score over 70%. It was typically only 10% ahead of the next best program. The metric everyone is looking at, GDT_TS, gives marks for atoms that are within eight angstroms of where they should be - by experimental standards, eight angstroms is a huge miss! There are targets where on some important metrics, like C-alpha RMSD, AlphaFold2 did worse than another program!


You're making extremely strong claims, counter to scientists with no incentive to praise Google being quoted with reactions such as expecting a mass exodus from computational biology. I, and I assume we, are open to hearing more but I'm not sure cherry-picking a couple examples is enough to credit your claims contra theirs.

For instance, the gentlemen who was presented as a skeptic is instead shown to also say it's solved, and in reply to this you say "everyone" is looking at the "wrong" metric, and it allows errors of 8+ atom widths - he notes the median error is 2.1 angstroms, or 2.1 atom widths.


I feel like there's a certain je ne sais quoi to the comments Google employees write where I can just immediately sense them without even needing to check.


You are not helping your case by calling out people based on where they work instead of what they say. Refulgentis is raising factual points.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: