Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nobelprize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 876 posts

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

#511

Post by canjobear »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #470
comment423 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're not identical but they are related. There's a series of approximations and simplifications you can go through to get from biological neurons to neural nets. Essentially the weights in the neural net end up corresponding to steady-state firing rates of populations of spiking neurons. See for example Chapter 7 of Dayan & Abbott's Theoretical Neuroscience.

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

#512

Post by whatshisface »

nextos wrote: post #501

I find the prize a bit odd this time since it focused on Hopfield networks and Boltzmann machines. Picking those two architectures in particular seems a bit arbitrary. Besides, Parisi got the prize last year (edit: actually 2021, time flies) for spin glasses. Hopfield networks are quite related. They could have included Hopfield & Hinton too, and it would have looked more coherent. It is also concerning that lately t…

The Nobel in Physics only goes with experimental discoveries, Peter Higgs didn't get his (deserved since the 70s) until the LHC directly observed the particle.

I agree that Hopfield networks and Boltzmann machines are a surprisingly arbitrary choices. It is like they wanted to give a prize to someone for neural networks, but had to pick people from inside their own field to represent the development, which limited the range of options. There is also the aspect of the physics community wanting to give somebody that they liked a Nobel, and then trying to fit them in. (The prize isn't handed out by a shadowy committee of Swedes, there's an involved and highly bureaucratic process for nomination that requires your colleagues to take up your case.)

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

#514

Post by choilive »

andrepd wrote: post #486
aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The most important factor tends to be the positive impact on society Making it even more baffling that this won then

If you don't think machine learning and neural networks have made massive positive contributions to humanity then you are naive.

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

#515

Post by nilkn »

This must be frustrating to see for all the actual physicists out there. What work in physics got ignored so that a prize for AI could be shoehorned in?

I do think work on neural networks does rise to the level of a Nobel Prize. So I don't have any problem with this work getting such high-level recognition. But I really struggle with the physics classification and the side effect of omitting an award to physicists this cycle.

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

#516

Post by KingFelix »

chriskanan wrote: post #386

Here is the reasoning: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/09/advanced-physicsp... I'm surprised Terry Sejnowski isn't included, considering it seems to be for Hopfield Nets and Boltzmann machines, where Terry played a large role in the latter.

Yeah, Terry is a rockstar, and pumping out tons of papers. Maybe they google scholared, list by citations?

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

#517

Post by famouswaffles »

ginko wrote: post #201
alwinaugustin wrote: post #74

It’s time to consider adding computer science as a category for the Nobel Prize. They have already been awarded prizes for economic sciences and peace, so why not computer science? It's not the same as physics, and its impact on modern life is undeniable

Why though? The Turing award exists.

People often say that the Turing award is the Nobel Prize of computing but that's not really true. The Turing award is the most prestigious award in computing yes but that's not enough for Noble like recognition/pedigree.

What makes the Nobel prize unique is that almost anyone, even the general public or pioneers in other fields etc can here you received one and be very impressed. You'll generally be met with blank stares if you told anyone not in computing or an enthusiast you'd won a Turing. Even if you then said, "It's the most prestigious award in computing!", it wouldn't hit the same.

Awards like these are basically only really worth their social recognition, so it's no surprise people would still want a Nobel in Computing/Mathematics etc even with Turing/Field etc existing.

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

#518

Post by nextos »

whatshisface wrote: post #512
nextos wrote: post #501

I find the prize a bit odd this time since it focused on Hopfield networks and Boltzmann machines. Picking those two architectures in particular seems a bit arbitrary. Besides, Parisi got the prize last year (edit: actually 2021, time flies) for spin glasses. Hopfield networks are quite related. They could have included Hopfield & Hinton too, and it would have looked more coherent. It is also concerning that lately t…

The Nobel in Physics only goes with experimental discoveries, Peter Higgs didn't get his (deserved since the 70s) until the LHC directly observed the particle. I agree that Hopfield networks and Boltzmann machines are a surprisingly arbitrary choices. It is like they wanted to give a prize to someone for neural networks, but had to pick people from inside their own field to represent the development, which limited th…

But, as you said, Higgs got his prize once theories were tested. Hence, theoretical contributors (still alive as per prize rules) could have been included here as well.

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

#519

Post by OneDonOne »

uoaei wrote: post #510
dev1ycan wrote: post #506

You can't take this back, this literally just discredited the only nobel that actually mattered, great job discrediting the nobel.

This is an appropriate application of this prize considering the adage that there are now three pillars to science, the third being simulation (after theory and experiment). Also, many of the underlying theories in machine learning display deep analogy with physical laws we are already familiar with, e.g., thermodynamics. Machine learning is much bigger than chatbots.

What Nobel-worthy physical, chemical, or biological process has been solved/discovered in silico?

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

#520

Post by siva7 »

nilkn wrote: post #515

This must be frustrating to see for all the actual physicists out there. What work in physics got ignored so that a prize for AI could be shoehorned in? I do think work on neural networks does rise to the level of a Nobel Prize. So I don't have any problem with this work getting such high-level recognition. But I really struggle with the physics classification and the side effect of omitting an award to physicists th…

Well, was there anything in physics more important than AI? No? See...
Post reply on HN