Kulik: No Current ML Potential Robustly Models All Materials Bonding
Heather Kulik · 🔬There Is No AlphaFold for Materials — AI for Materials Discovery with Heather Kulik · Mar 24, 2026 · at 24:42
MIT Associate Professor Heather Kulik discusses the structural and chemical challenges of building AI models for materials discovery compared to AlphaFold's protein modeling.
0:00 / 0:17exact quote · 17.6s
▶ Watch the full episode on YouTube → 720p mp4 · rendered on demand · StarZero watermark
“The challenge is that you have a lot more than 20 building blocks when it comes to materials and so there's lots of different ways to think about chemical bonding, and right now no potentials are really robustly encoding all of that bonding, especially with respect to metal-organic bonding.”
quote is from the automated transcript, cleaned for reading: filler sounds and stutters are removed, nothing is rephrased. names can be misheard (the analysis reads context, assessments check outside sources). how →
More from Heather Kulik
Unnamed materials foundation model is only 5x faster than DFT and unreliable
“It's only in my hands the one I'm still not naming is only about five times faster than my fastest DFT calculation on a GPU, and it also doesn't work all the time.”
Kulik: AI for materials is at 'ground zero' on manufacturing processing
“Most people who actually work on
Getting materials to the device scale, say something that would be in your television or something like that, is they will tell you that it's not just the material, it's the process.
And I think we're at ground zero.
We're nowh…”
Kulik: Materials AI Models Can Fail Far More Catastrophically Than AlphaFold
“So it's just hard to know from experiment or from other computations if these types of models are correct, and they're certainly not correct across all of chemical space and I'd say they could fail more catastrophically than AlphaFold obviously fails, though t…”
Kulik: Literature breakdown temperatures from graphs frequently contradict authors' text descriptions
“One of the funniest things I think we noticed is that you can get the temperature at which a material will break down two ways. One, you can get it from the graph, and two, you can get it from what the authors say about how they interpret the graph. And those …”