Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]

Post by littlestymaar » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

mr_mitm wrote: post #372

moelf wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Einstein supposedly won for "especially his work on the photoelectric effect" rather than relativity. just adding to this, this is because relativity wasn't experimentally verified (i.e. not sure if it's reality) at the time.

Also, the prize is about the greatest benefit to humankind according to Alfred Nobel, not the most impressive research. Arguably, the photoelectric effect fits that notion better than GR or any other of Einstein's research. Besides that, Einstein received the prize in 1921, whereas the Eddington experiment in 1919 generally counts as the first experimental verification of GR.

Post by __lbracket__ » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:27 PM UTC

Post by seydor » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:38 PM UTC

Chabsff wrote: post #425

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #422

I suppose LeCun and Bengio are way too young for a Nobel prize these days[0] [0] https://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/images/fig01.jpeg

No, these are the proper laureates (for that topic anyways, whether the topic is appropriate in the first place is another matter). LeCun and Bengio's works are undoubtedly immensely impactful, but there's no denying that they are standing on shoulders of giants.

Post by telotortium » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:40 PM UTC

moelf wrote: post #230

Separo wrote: post #210

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.