591–600 of 876 posts
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.
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
What about;
- Improved weather forecasts
- Protein folding
- Medical imaging and diagnostics
- Text-to-speech and voice recognition
- Language Translation
- Finance fraud detection
- Supply chain and logistics optimization
- Natural disaster prediction
“In 1985 Hinton published a paper ‘How I Intend to Screw Over Physicists by Winning Their Nobel Prize’” As expected iconoclast Sabine Hossenfelder is quick out of the gate with sarcasm and commentary on this one. https://youtu.be/dR1ncz-Lozc?si=7kpntqwCzp0HLi02
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still kind of baffles me that there isn't a Nobel Prize in Mathematics and/or computer science. The latter makes a bit more sense, computer science wasn't really a thing when Alfred Nobel was around, but mathematics certainly was! It seems like it would be perfectly reasonable to add a category for math, and I think Neural Nets would fit in there considerably better.
The Swedish central bank later added the price in economics (although controversial). So other things can be amended. However, I suspect we won't see any more amendments to the noble price. A different institution can step up and make a price on its own, though I'm not sure what institution would have that amount of prestige without weaponizing it for commercial purposes. I prefer a nicer price for mathematics that i…
I'm not sure I agree with that. There's plenty of theoretical computer science that isn't really "engineering" and would fall into a pretty different category than stuff like FFT or Navier Stokes.
If you look at something like Concurrency Theory, for example, and work with stuff like Pi Calculus or CSP or Petri Nets, those aren't "engineering feats", but also kind of fall into a different category than the rest of math, or at least pretty different than Navier Stokes. I think you could make a pretty strong argument that CSP has been a pretty big innovation in regards the academic state of the art while not simply being engineering.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a tired reply. The peace prize is not part of the same group as the other awards, and a significant difference in the peace award is that intent is awarded not results. The dude who invented the MAD doctrine did not get the award despite nuke deterrance doctrice being related to the least amount of wars in any century since WW2. But his platform of deescalation and his plans for american foregin diplomac…
> The dude who invented the MAD doctrine did not get the award No, he didn't win the award, because MAD doctrine (aside from it being immoral) doesn't actually work in the real world. It's an idealized model based on game theory, which doesn't deal with pesky complexities such as irrationality, salami tactics, short-range CBMs, anti-missile defenses, tactical nukes and so on. (That's why many of these things used to…
How do LeCun and Bengio feel about being left out of the most prestigous prize of them all? (Geoffrey Hinton, Yann LeCun, and Yoshua Bengio was together awarded the Turing prize in 2018...)
Why does it fall under physics and not under mathematics?
There isn’t a Nobel prize for mathematics. There is the Fields medal but it is different, and not handled by the same organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't matter. He wants to work on AI risk, right?
Unsure of your point - I meant he doesn’t believe in provate property, so the prize money shouldn’t be a factor. If he truly believes what he says he believes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, fuck peer review!/s
Everyone's first thought when they read something is whatever the social norms say you're supposed to think (peer review = good, publishing without peer review = not science somehow?), but shouldn't you stop and wonder why the esteemed scientist wrote that line instead of just dismissing it? Otherwise you are only chiming in to enforce a norm that everyone already knows about, which is pointless. One of the really re…
What's stopping them from doing so?