data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/00238/0023801393e6c4521d81bec4e333be6f483f3a3b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1df69/1df69f53f5559e83c288e08b403109544e78dc05" alt=""
I would say that in comparison to the standards used for top ML conferences, the paper is relatively light on the details. But nonetheless some folks have been able to reimplement portions of their techniques.
ML in general has a reproducibility crisis. Lots of papers are extremely hard to reproduce, even if they’re open source, since the optimization process is partly random (ordering of batches, augmentations, nondeterminism in GPUs etc.), and unfortunately even with seeding, the randomness is not guaranteed to be consistent across platforms.
I think what they meant by that is “is this different wrt antitrust compared to Intel and x86?”
Intel both owns the x86 ISA and designs processors for it, though the situation is more favorable in that AMD owns x86-64 and obviously also designs their own processors.