Who would've thought only releasing pseudo-code isn't good enough...glad to see the scientific immune system fighting back against closed-source science. Your move Google.
Also, for work of the highest art (of which AF3 is an example), publication in nature really is the fundamental unit of scientific currency because it ensures all their competitors will get hyped up and work extra-hard to disprove it.
> Also, for work of the highest art (of which AF3 is an example), publication in nature really is the fundamental unit of scientific currency because it ensures all their competitors will get hyped up and work extra-hard to disprove it.
IDK about disproving it, again nobody is distrusting the work, but let's also not pretend that a prestige journal is necessary to promote AF3. They could publish in the Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal and get the same amount of press. And to be clear the controversy has largely center on Nature for allowing AF3 to get away with more than they would most other projects, and the wasted time and effort it's taking to reimplement the work so people can add to it. FWIW an author did state that they're attempting to release the code but that's not like a binding vow.
Finally, AF3 strictly speaking didn't win CASP (it almost certainly would) but again this isn't necessarily the point when people talk about validation. The diffusion process does seem to result in notable edge cases (most obviously in IDPs and IDRs but also non-existent self-interactions), it's not a straight improvement in that respect.