171–180 of 876 posts
Next: Authors of "Attention is all you need" paper get Nobel Prize in Literature for writing one of the most read papers in past decade.
Bob Dylan already won that prize to similar controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>where we all know that mathematics and/or CS deserve the honor Or semiconductor manufacturers. All the math and CS needed for AI can fit on a napkin, and had been known for 200+ years. It's the extreme scaling enabled by semiconductor science that really makes the difference.
I don’t think calculus existed at sufficient rigor 200 years ago. Computer science wasn’t even a thing 100 years ago.
If Newton had the machinery to fit large models to data, he would have done so. No doubt.
This is embarrassing. I would say Hopfield networks aren't even very revolutionary in neuroscience, but they're so old I can't tell. In terms of AI... they've been irrelevant for thirty years. I guess you could argue a transformer is a generalized Hopfield network, but of course that's a post-hoc understanding. None of this has anything to do with physics. So what if an energy function lets you approximate the number…
But let's not forget that the brain is a physical system and that neural networks are part of the reason we understand the brain as well as we do.
There was a long period where people like Chomsky thought the brain couldn't learn fast enough and that knowledge had to be innate.
As a physicist, my reaction to this is how bizarre is that. Maybe he deserves a nobel prize but in physics? Also arguing that NN is used in physics so we can argue nobel prize is okay is like asking for Stephan Wolfram to be awarded Nobel prize for Mathematica which is much more used in physics as a tool. And he is a physicist and had contributions to the field of numerical relativity (The reason he created Mathemati…
Reminds me of the old classic Physics and Politics by Walter Bagehot.
Chemists everywhere are wondering where this furor has been for the forty years or so.
"This year’s laureates used tools from physics to construct methods that helped lay the foundation for today’s powerful machine learning." Does this mean if I'd use a deep understanding of birds to design way more aerodynamic airplanes, I could get the Nobel prize in physiology/medicine? Don't get me wrong, their work is probably prize worthy, but shouldn't the Nobel prize in physics be awarded for discoveries in the…
I studied physics in the 90s and we had an NNs course, where most of the models were inspired by physics (MLPs was just one). NNs have been used since decades for identifying e.g. the trajectories of particles at CERN. I remember Hinton's work with Sejnowski (who probably should also be awarded). I was actually surprised to find out that Hinton was not a physicist by training Obviously physicists take great interest…
Imagine how Schmidhuber's feeling right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate, which wars did he start? (honest question)
"He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan." https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
A bit different from "started a war".
So uh, things are not looking so good for actual physics these days, I gather?
Former high energy theorist here: things are not looking so good for high energy physics (both theoretical and experimental) which loosely speaking accounted for maybe 1/3-1/2 of Nobel Prizes in the 20th century. That’s part of the reason I got out. I’m inclined to say astrophysics and cosmology, another pillar of the fundamental understanding of the universe, isn’t doing that well either, probably in the okayish but…
With astrophysics, we're probably going to need the more sensitive gravitational wave detectors that are in development to become operational for new big breakthroughs. With high energy physics, many particle colliders and synchrotron light sources seem to be undergoing major upgrades these days. While particle colliders tend to get the spotlight in the public eye and are in a weird spot regarding the expected research outcomes, light sources are still doing pretty well afaik.
This Nobel I think is mainly because AI has overwhelmingly dominated the public's perception of scientific/technological progress this year.