411–420 of 876 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
very little to do with neuroscience
Except that the development of deep neural networks took direct inspiration biological neuroscience with neurons and synapses. Neural is even in the name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning
When was the last time we gave someone a Nobel physics who hasn't bothered writing a book? We have professors dying without a tint of recognition for their work. The whole ordeal is terrible, it's like giving Einstein a Nobel in medicine because his research on photoelectric effect has opened a new domain in biotechnology and because that's the new cool thing in the market, we'll go with that.
A lot of the outsiders think "physics is dead", but dare they look into the research inside it. It is not at all dead. And arguing that failing to have definitive answers to the Big questions means being 'dead' is a terrible way to look at the field. Math still doesn't have a definite way to look at primes, for centuries we didn't have the definite way to look at algebraic equations of higher degrees and general solutions to them. That didn't make math die, that's what keeps it alive. I am fine with Hoppfield for once maybe, but seriously why Hinton?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there is a take I can disagree with more strongly. New technology can always be used for good or bad. His work in ML sets the course for a better future in spite of the people who use it for ill, whether advertisers or warlords.
> New technology can always be used for good or bad. Always? Like atomic bombs? > His work in ML sets the course for a better future That very much remains to be seen, isn't it? So far, the negatives outweigh the positives.
I disagree the negatives outweigh the positive. Spellcheck, Google maps traffic, and electricity distribution are three applications I've used this morning. We dont tend to think about the successful applications, instead focusing the solely negative use like adtech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a source loose of inspiration for sure, but it still have nothing to do with neurosciences. “Neural” network are as close to actual nervous system as the “Democratic” Republic of Korea is to democracy.
You're mistaken. The perceptron was invented by Rosenblatt, a psychologist. This field has deep roots in neuroscience.
Well, the easiest way to enter the ML field is to pivot from theoretical physics.
Geoffrey Hinton wins the Nobel prize in physics for giving physics postdocs more reasonable job market options
Speaking as a onetime physicist now in ML...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh come on, blue LEDs were a feat of physics and chemistry mastery.
I'm sure they are but they drive me nuts. If I ever become filthy rich and in doing so sell my soul and become a bad person, one of my priorities will doubtless be to have the blue led inventors hunted down remorselessly.[1] [1] Note to future law-enforcement: I am honestly kidding. I wouldn't hurt a fly, officer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can only think of major achievements in my (narrow) field of study. What do you think could have reasonably been awarded?
Three off the top of my head: The measurement of the Hubble constant using delay times between multiple images of lensed supernovae. The first transit spectrum of an exoplanet atmosphere. The first directly imaged exoplanet. (They could hand out Nobel Prizes in the field of exoplanets like candy.)
"conferred the greatest benefit to humankind"
So while those things are cool and groundbreaking, I'd say they have yet to cross the threshold into "greatest benefit to humankind"