Geoffrey E. Hinton contributions in CS/AI are amazing, but this award makes no sense. There's the Turing Award - which Hinton already got. This year's award shows very clearly that the worldwide underfunding of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, has had a heavy price, that is crystallizing now. There are probably more physicists currently Wall Street than doing research.
Congrats to Hinton, albeit I have to disagree with some of Hinton comment over the past year, I think his thinking like AI in 50 years rather then now. Beside that I think under Von Newman AI at most is an imitation, if we want AI like human or Cortana from Halo the game, at least closer to now we have to jump out of Von Newman Alma matter of mine, while one of, UofT
While I can see your point, thought this may be justified that it set up and revolutionised how we do science, especially in the field of natural science and biological, as well as astronomical tha the running saying and benchmark competition between different labs in the school as well as external and co-competition and collaboration is by how much or how many computational server power you have to do the science you need. Kind leave the petri dish and come back, now is, not saying completely replace it, but in a lot of field, especially theoritical, the going is leave the computational on and come back afte rthe week-end or break and vacation to see the result and so on
The academy should have added the Nobel Prize in Computer science to existing prizes. It will deteriorate "the original" physics. Why must the two different kinds of science compete for one prize?
Just like all of relevant physics use mathematics. Matrix multiplication is not a new discovery but its ingenous application in physics/computation would warrant a nobel prize. Also, theories are not the basis of award but its application/proof. This is why Einstein did not get his Nobel Prize from his theories of relativity but those who experimentally proves it can get a prize. And, if someone finally discovers a cure for all cancer that person will probably do so using computing (i.e. the most likely path is through finally figuring out protein folding which is currently being undertaken using computing--machine learning).
All the CS majors complaining in the comments section probably haven't heard of Statistical Physics. I don't know about Hinton, but Hopfield's work is pure statistical mechanics that came out of the physics of spin glasses, and thinking about memory stored in free energy landscapes. Physics is not dead, it has just branched out and become more interdisciplinary. Recent Nobel prizes such as the one to climate scientists a few years ago are affirming these trends.
well, there is no separate category for computational science. And it seems that current physics 'physics' development are not as valuable as this according to the committee. But this still tracks if you consider the fact that it was via physics that actual computing in its present state was primarily driven by previous physics discoveries (including quantum mechanics /particle physics and similar discoveries which uses statistical mechanics). Mathematics also has its own thing and one can safely argue that computational sciences is closer to physics than mathemathics in terms of its development although it uses mathematics in actual computation/modelling.
Computational science is about applying computational methods to solve problems in physics. Here they applied mathematical tools developed for physics to solve problems in machine learning.
Congratulations to John Hopfield! His contributions to Energy Based models are quite interdisciplinary (a prize for (neuro)-physiology would also be fitting), but the practical relevance of Hopfield Networks ~ Dynamical Ising Models for Disordered Systems / Condensed Matter Physics seem to be quite considerable (to the person outside both fields though). Still, I think the real advancement is in the theoretical and "intuitive" framework of HNs which allow to bring together numerous fields: Associative Memory + Hebbian Learning, Spin / Phase Transitions and Stat-mech, Combinatorial Optimization and circuit modeling; HN's enrich non-physical fields with the language of Energy Systems (e.g. Lagrangian mechanics). Science is not just about solving concrete problems and proving exact theorems, the compositional language of science acts as a substrate from which new ideas emerge, and I think many modern topics - from neuromorphic computers / magnetic films, to diffusion models and even Transformers all benefited quite a bit from John Hopfield's efforts to grow synaptic connections between diverse perspectives! [I am also happy for Jeffrey Hinton whom I consider not just a great researcher but one of the best educators as well, but it is true that Jeffrey Hinton had public reverence captured for quite many years now]
The world of science, especially physics, is so beautiful and inspiring for those who have the chance to communicate with it that it does not need a glamorous space or creative decorations for this event, and this is the reason for the simplicity of this space. I don't mean technology
Just watched the nobel prize live stream, surprised by the topic, looks very engineering to me rather than physics, do algorithms make physics subsidiary?
Nobel prize in physics should goes to those who have done something which explain the mother nature.if someone using magnet making some device it's technology but how magnets works? the mechanism of it is part of physics.
I got it, they gave medal based on application of ai in physics but this way, they should have given every single science medal to them, because ai has lots of amazing applications in every sciences😅
"My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined" How is this contribution worthy to the field of Physics? Come on. This is disrespectful to so many talented physicists who are actively contributing to many fields in physics. I don't understand how they(nobel committee) can sleep after doing this. Truly baffling and utterly disrespectful to the prize itself. You can maybe create a seperate category for computer science. This also sets a bad precendant, are physicists going to have to compete with computer scientists now? Isn't there a nobel of computer science already there? Turing prize? What? This makes zero sense. Have a little shame. Don't disrespect physics like this.
So by that logic doesn't chemistry too depends on a lot of physics. So If someone makes a new kind of game changing polymer in their lab should they be awarded nobel prize in physics for doing that?
This should have been under Turing and other mathematical or engineering awards, not Nobel Prize in Physics. I'm puzzled as to how computer science and mathematical computation became physics. This is very disappointing to all aspiring physicists. I'm very disappointed by what this has become!!
Congrats to Hinton, albeit I have to disagree with some of Hinton comment over the past year, I think his thinking like AI in 50 years rather then now. Beside that I think under Von Newman AI at most is an imitation, if we want AI like human or Cortana from Halo the game, at least closer then now we have then to jump out of Von Newman Alma matter of mine, while one of, UofT
Congrats, albeit I have to disagree with some of Hinton comment over the past year, I think his thinking like AI in 50 years rather then now Alma matter of mine, while one of, UofT
Thank you. Doesn't matter if it's not "Physics". Hopfield & Hinton's work is actually impactful. Unlike those of String theorists who have hogged public funding for so long with nothing to show for it.
What do you mean by "Doesn't matter if it's not 'Physics'"??? what an irony... I mean giving a Sea cucumber a climate award for it's contributions to preserve nutrients in the marine world is still better than this. Tell me what correlation exists between this and what the award is meant for, you already have the Turing Award for it.
The physics field is so stripped off of any revolutionizing inventions that the Nobel committee decided to just award something loosely adjacent to it. That's what happens when you fund string theory research for decades.
It's the erroneous impression that this prize is giving, which is very sad. There are indeed many results in physics worthy of a prize. You can easily search for speculations on this from the last few days. The list is long ..
