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

621–630 of 876 posts

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

#621

Post by chubot »

whatshisface wrote: post #614
chubot wrote: post #603

I definitely think their work is deserving of awards, but I kinda agree with other commenters in that this says more about the Nobel committee than anything i.e. Hinton has already won a Turing Award in 2018, and there is no Nobel for computer science And this work was already recognized to have impact ~12 years ago, when he auctioned his company of 2 grad students to Google/Microsoft/Baidu/Facebook, for over $40M, u…

> IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant > scientific awards are more interesting when leading indicators Peter Higgs waited 50 years, the Nobel is not a "leading indicator." If it was, it would be given out on the basis of the "hype cycle," which would not be very helpful to anybody.

Well, it's possible to wait 50 years, and still NOT have realized the full impact of your work in society

Sometimes science/engineering turns out like that

e.g. I think Claude Shannon is like that -- his impact continues to rise, and he's viewed as more important after he died

He apparently never won a Turing Award or Nobel Prize, probably because there was and is no Nobel in computer science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon#Awards_and_hono...

So I guess I mean "drawing attention to something that would have not otherwise had attention", and based on the consensus of people working in the field

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

#622

Post by meepmorp »

whatshisface wrote: post #614
chubot wrote: post #603

I definitely think their work is deserving of awards, but I kinda agree with other commenters in that this says more about the Nobel committee than anything i.e. Hinton has already won a Turing Award in 2018, and there is no Nobel for computer science And this work was already recognized to have impact ~12 years ago, when he auctioned his company of 2 grad students to Google/Microsoft/Baidu/Facebook, for over $40M, u…

> IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant > scientific awards are more interesting when leading indicators Peter Higgs waited 50 years, the Nobel is not a "leading indicator." If it was, it would be given out on the basis of the "hype cycle," which would not be very helpful to anybody.

The Higgs boson was first detected in 2012 and he won the Nobel the following year. Saying he waited 50 years for the prize is a bit disingenuous.

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

#626

Post by jhbadger »

passwordoops wrote: post #62
pvitz wrote: post #18

Next year, the creators of Excel will get the prize, because it is an implementation of the mathematical universe.

You know what, I can support this for its predecessor, Lotus123. If ANNs are worthy of the prize in physics, then so is this

VisiCalc, surely. Lotus 123, much like Excel, was just following in the footsteps of the original spreadsheet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VisiCalc

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

#627

Post by Apocryphon »

vasco wrote: post #609
Apocryphon wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing up wars.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-promised-withdr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_United_States_...

That's the second withdrawal from a second presence, requested by the Iraqi government after the rise of ISIL.

> The United States completed its prior withdrawal of troops in December 2011, concluding the Iraq War.[9] In June 2014, the United States formed Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) and re-intervened at the request of the Iraqi government due to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

> On 9 December 2017, Iraq declared victory against ISIL, concluding the 2013–2017 War in Iraq and commencing the latest ISIL insurgency in Iraq.

Perhaps those troops should have been withdrawn for the second time in early 2018. Alas, it took place after messier circumstances.

> On 31 December 2019 through 1 January 2020, the United States Embassy in Baghdad was attacked in response to the airstrikes.[6] On 3 January 2020, the United States conducted an airstrike that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani and Kata'ib Hezbollah commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.[6] Iraq protested that the airstrike violated their sovereignty.[13] > > In March 2020, the U.S.-led coalition, Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF–OIR), began transferring control over a number of military installations back to Iraqi security forces, citing developments in the multi-year mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Or perhaps the second withdrawal has never actually completed.

> In February 2021, NATO announced it would expand its mission to train Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIL,[14] partially reversing the U.S.-led troop withdrawals. In April 2021, U.S. Central Command stated that there were no plans for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, citing continued threats posed by the ISIL insurgency and Iran-backed militias.[3]

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

#628

Post by zellyn »

littlestymaar wrote: post #431
mr_mitm wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Arguably, the photoelectric effect fits that notion better than GR or any other of Einstein's research Today we could argue about it due to the importance of solar panels, but that was hard to forecast in 1921. Also, without GR there would be no GPS so it's not like it doesn't bring benefits to humanity.

Surely they would have just noticed a discrepancy in timing and added a few circles-upon-circles to effectively fix it up? Is deeply grokking relativity necessary for GPS to work?

On the other hand, it would be impossible to make those adjustments without someone coming up with GR :-)

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

#629

Post by tikhonj »

ajkjk wrote: post #581
DrillShopper wrote: post #536

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…

We still have lots of stray thoughts, responses and observations, now they just happen on blog posts, on social media and in other non-peer-reviewed venues. The Internet has driven the cost of publishing to 0, and peer review is the only thing left that makes academic publishing qualitatively different. If anything, publishing your thoughts online is better than publishing a traditional paper in every single way except for peer review.

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

#630

Post by kibwen »

meepmorp wrote: post #622
whatshisface wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant > scientific awards are more interesting when leading indicators Peter Higgs waited 50 years, the Nobel is not a "leading indicator." If it was, it would be given out on the basis of the "hype cycle," which would not be very helpful to anybody.

The Higgs boson was first detected in 2012 and he won the Nobel the following year. Saying he waited 50 years for the prize is a bit disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous, the Higgs mechanism was theorized in the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_the_Higgs_boson
Post reply on HN