Live data from Hacker News

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

nobelprize.org

461–470 of 876 posts

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

#461

What if I were to tell you that Physics included more than Theoretical Particles? Are experimental Physicist just Engineers? Are String Theorists just Mathematicians? Is John von Neumann not a Physicist because he also worked with Computers? Awful lot of nit-picking in this thread.

No; The Nobel Committee has done a complete error in judgement with this.

These are Mathematics/CS techniques and nothing whatever to do with core Theoretical/Experimental Physics notwithstanding that they may have been inspired from Physics. There are plenty of Physics Researchers toiling away at real hard problems of the Physical World and instead of recognizing them the Committee has gone with "market fads" which themselves were only realizable due to Hardware advances at scale over the past decade. With this award they have disheartened and demotivated all true Physics Researchers which is a huge disservice to the Hard Science Community.

This is not to say that AI/ML researchers/community are not worthy of recognition. But they should not be folded under Physics rather a new category should have been created and they then awarded under it.

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

#464

Just watched the nobel prize live stream, surprised by the topic, looks very engineering to me rather than physics, do algorithms make physics subsidiary?

The physics prize has historically taken the role of both "innovation/engineering" topics and "mathematics". It's more broad than simply physics.

The most important factor tends to be the positive impact on society, as that's one of the price's core tenets.

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

#465

Did Hinton win for the restricted Boltzmann machine? I believe Paul Smolensky has some priority with the Harmonium, but Hinton certainly deserves it. But worth reading Smolensky’s paper, it is a classic!! https://stanford.edu/~jlmcc/papers/PDP/Volume%201/Chap6_PDP8...

I don't see a date in the PDF. When was it written?

It's a chapter from here: Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP research group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Volume I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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

#466
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels a bit like the field of physics claiming the invention of AI, where we all know that mathematics and/or CS deserve the honor.

>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.

[deleted]

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

#467

Did Hinton win for the restricted Boltzmann machine? I believe Paul Smolensky has some priority with the Harmonium, but Hinton certainly deserves it. But worth reading Smolensky’s paper, it is a classic!! https://stanford.edu/~jlmcc/papers/PDP/Volume%201/Chap6_PDP8...

I don't see a date in the PDF. When was it written?

Another version of that paper [0] is dated Feb. 1986.

[0]: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA620727.pdf

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

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the economics prize is not 'official', it was established by the Swedish National Bank in honor to Alfred Nobel.

I see this written a lot, and I don’t get it. What matters for an award is that people recognise it as a prestigious accolade. The economics prize, while not “official”, is still recognised by everyone in economics as the highest honour in the field. Who cares if it’s “official” or not? Awards and prizes derive their value from their social recognition, which it has a solid amount of, at the very least.

Do they get to go to the ceremony with the other laureates, meet the king, etc?

Of course that doesn't matter to anybody else, but I could see it mattering to the laureates themselves.

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

#469

I wonder if they ever gave a Physics Nobel to a person who held a patent! People like Graham Bell never got recognized by the Nobel people. I get the impression that Physics Nobel prizes were more or less given only to University professors. They didnt seem to particularly care for people with grease on their hands

A post from yesterday, complaining about Musk not receiving a prize despite (according to the author of that post) deserving it, has had me thinking about that too. Folks like Bell, Musk, Bezos etc are in many ways similar to Alfred Nobel, highly successful and very controversial businessmen, where their contributions to the world have had great positives and great negatives.

Putting aside the fact that it's also entirely reasonable to say that Musk, Bezos etc, while having changed the world, have not really personally made breakthroughs in fundamental science of the level as to deserve a Nobel prize; I wonder if the Nobel Foundation avoids figures like that because of the parallels.

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

#470
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very little to do with neuroscience

More to do with neuroscience than you think. Fukushima took direct inspiration from Hubel & Wiesel's nobel prize in the 1960s when developing the neocognitron, which turned into convolutional neural networks. Hopfield networks are a model for associative memory. And, well, then there is the perceptron. There was always a link and mutual inspiration. Recommended reading: Lindsay, G. W. (2021). Convolutional neural net…

As inspiration, yes. However, a neural network neuron and a biological neuron are, to modern understanding, entirely unrelated.
Post reply on HN