331–340 of 876 posts
When the most significant advance since electrification needs to hop the fence to be recognized, perhaps it's time to add a new field. It can be done, the Economics prize was added in 1968.
I just don't see how this can be claimed at this point.
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…
This is the only plausible reason: “These artificial neural networks have been used to advance research across physics topics as diverse as particle physics, materials science, and astrophysics,” Ellen Moons, chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics, said at a press conference this morning.
There's a long backlog of major achievements in physics that haven't gotten a Nobel Prize in Physics . Giving the prize to something that has essentially nothing to do with physics is just a slap in the face to the physics community.
Well maybe in time ML will help break through the high energy physics roadblocks.
it already had, bottom-quark tagging has improved O(10)x in efficiency in the last decade without any new "physics" understanding, just from training with more low-level data and better ML arch (now using Transformers) but we haven't found new physics with or without ML, making this prize a little weird.
Kissinger was one of the most prominent disrupters of world peace in the postwar era but that didn't stop him winning the peace prize. Churchill won the literature prize for defeating Hitler. The blue led guys a few years back didn't do much except make a thing that would go on every single consumer gadget and disrupt my sleep but they won the physics prize.
Even when they get it right they often get it wrong. For example I believe Einstein supposedly won for "especially his work on the photoelectric effect" rather than relativity.
When the most significant advance since electrification needs to hop the fence to be recognized, perhaps it's time to add a new field. It can be done, the Economics prize was added in 1968.
> most significant advance since electrification I just don't see how this can be claimed at this point.
At best you could argue that they're the same phenomenon, but then you might equally well argue electrification is just the consequence of steam engines.
Feynman would voice his objections if he were alive ... what about nature was discovered? ANN is an application of a variant of Universal Approximation Theorem ...
Feynman was a well-known proponent of AI and neural networks [1]. He even gave popular lectures on the subject [2]. He also claimed that replicating animal-like visual recognition abilities in machines would be Nobel-worthy; deep learning was certainoy a breakthrough in that. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.00083 [2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI
There's a long backlog of major achievements in physics that haven't gotten a Nobel Prize in Physics . Giving the prize to something that has essentially nothing to do with physics is just a slap in the face to the physics community.
I can only think of major achievements in my (narrow) field of study. What do you think could have reasonably been awarded?
Some people still alive who made important contributions to this are Rees and Sunyaev.