When the most significant advance since electrification needs to hop the fence to be recognized, perhaps it's time to add a new field. It can be done, the Economics prize was added in 1968.
The economics prize is not an actual Nobel prize, but something "inspired" by the Nobel prize. It's little more than a tool to push neoliberal policies to the public, with 34 of the 56 winners tied to the Chicago School of Economics.
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.
Sincerely, I don't like a shadow cast over the Turing and Gödel prizes. These awards have long honored groundbreaking achievements in computing and logic.
Nice idea. You could also have a Nobel prize in applied mathematics, perhaps? This would cover ML and physics.
That said, your idea would make physicists less outraged.
This is unlikely to ever happen, because Nobel explicitly excluded mathematics from the list of prizes in his will. There are plenty of awards and prizes for every field imaginable, not everything has to be a Nobel prize to be worthy of recognition.
Then again, its just mathturbation, but standalone and it can pretend to have a theory of everything, so fits well into the field.
Advance indeed! Meet the Lavender system, used to automatically select human targets in Gaza:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai...
Since this is a real world application, I suppose it could get the Physics Nobel Prize!
Just wait till you hear what they built with all the things we learned about atoms and energy in the 30s and 40s!
Honestly it feels a bit weird with a Nobel laureate in physics who probably knows a lot less physics than even I* do… Makes me cringe a bit to be honest.
Also makes me sad when I think about all the physicists and engineers who have made the chips that can train multi-billion parameter neural networks possible. I mean the so-called “bitter lesson” of AI is basically “don’t bet against the physicists at ASML et al”. No prize for them?
(*) I have a humble masters in engineering physics, but work in ML and software.
I work in industry supporting these supply chains; our advancements are part of a hive mind that could be harmed if individuals were artificially highlighted for achievement.
The academics can have their awards, we smile seeing the world change a bit at a time.
Well maybe in time ML will help break through the high energy physics roadblocks.
it already had, bottom-quark tagging has improved O(10)x in efficiency in the last decade without any new "physics" understanding, just from training with more low-level data and better ML arch (now using Transformers)
but we haven't found new physics with or without ML, making this prize a little weird.
One of the very early successful applications of ML was using neural network and other models in particle identification systems in particle physics experiments.
I'm annoyed that he was awarded just now, obviously as a reaction to ChatGPT and the breakthrough of LLMs. If his work is worthy, it has been worthy many years ago.
This reinforces the reduction of ML to LLMs, just like the use of the term AI.
Now,it is also too late for Kohonen, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuvo_Kohonen
Well, the easiest way to enter the ML field is to pivot from theoretical physics.
Geoffrey Hinton wins the Nobel prize in physics for giving physics postdocs more reasonable job market options
Lol I almost choked laughing at this lmaoo
A profound moment where physics, neuroscience and artificial intelligence intersect.
very little to do with neuroscience
Very little to do with physics.
GrAdIeNt DeScEnT
Except that the development of deep neural networks took direct inspiration biological neuroscience with neurons and synapses. Neural is even in the name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning
still, very little to do with neuroscience
It was a source loose of inspiration for sure, but it still have nothing to do with neurosciences.
“Neural” network are as close to actual nervous system as the “Democratic” Republic of Korea is to democracy.
You're mistaken. The perceptron was invented by Rosenblatt, a psychologist. This field has deep roots in neuroscience.
Well, come on, not that far apart.
When I see someone trying this hard to be smart I just hear "REEEEEEEEE" or "Well actually......"
Congrats to the laureates! Maybe a Computing prize should be created though, like Nobel did not create the "nobel prize of economy".Though you could argue that Computing is Math? What are computer scientists usually rewarded with?
I think there's some backlash against a google-able answer here.
However, from memory the list of biggest awards for CS/Math are:
Fields medal
Abel prize
Turing award
Godel award
>What are computer scientists usually rewarded with?
The Turing Award is the highest award in computer science.
To be fair, Nobel Prize has a history of expanding the traditional bounds of respective fields when awarding the prizes:
Bertrand Russel got the Nobel prize in literature
Daniel Kahneman got Nobel in economics
The economics prize is not a Nobel prize.
Winston Churchill got a Nobel in literature, too.
Yes, but for his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, and more broadly, for his lifetime as an author.
(Admittedly, even more broadly, the prize was the Nobel Committee wanting to acknowledge his leadership in WW2, but still.)
Bob Dylan on literature was another "hmm" one.
Neither in favor nor against, it was just an unexpected awardee.
Bob Dylan is the Boomer poet laureate.
War criminials got Nobel prize in peace.
Which were you referring to?
There's a long backlog of major achievements in physics that haven't gotten a Nobel Prize in Physics.
Giving the prize to something that has essentially nothing to do with physics is just a slap in the face to the physics community.
> a slap in the face to the physics community
The physics community could use a few more slaps in the face, according to many physicists.
The response of the physicists they say should get a slap is, in programming terms, basically shut up and show me the code. It's a fairly one sided debate that we're blessed with seeing in literally every thread anywhere about it
I can only think of major achievements in my (narrow) field of study.
What do you think could have reasonably been awarded?
Three off the top of my head:
The measurement of the Hubble constant using delay times between multiple images of lensed supernovae.
The first transit spectrum of an exoplanet atmosphere.
The first directly imaged exoplanet.
(They could hand out Nobel Prizes in the field of exoplanets like candy.)
Exoplanet science is not physics, it's chemistry or planetary science. By your logic prizes to teams who send probes to the outer solar system planets could also be given prizes.
I would argue that the first measurements of exoplanets' existence is definitely physics. This was a leap in our understanding of the makeup of the universe.
What's "exoplanet science"? The above are applications of knowledge of physics to astrophysics, as far as I understand it. Certainly they sound more relevant to physics than neural networks.
Ok, so under what logic does ML become physics?
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41775449 (> 40 comments).
So uh, things are not looking so good for actual physics these days, I gather?
Former high energy theorist here: things are not looking so good for high energy physics (both theoretical and experimental) which loosely speaking accounted for maybe 1/3-1/2 of Nobel Prizes in the 20th century. That’s part of the reason I got out. I’m inclined to say astrophysics and cosmology, another pillar of the fundamental understanding of the universe, isn’t doing that well either, probably in the okayish but not as exciting as it used to be territory. I’m not qualified to talk about other fields.
I think saying they're not looking good might be a bit of an exaggeration. Technological developments in both high energy physics and astrophysics stuff are in-between generations of technology right now, which is why things are a bit slower than usual.
With astrophysics, we're probably going to need the more sensitive gravitational wave detectors that are in development to become operational for new big breakthroughs. With high energy physics, many particle colliders and synchrotron light sources seem to be undergoing major upgrades these days. While particle colliders tend to get the spotlight in the public eye and are in a weird spot regarding the expected research outcomes, light sources are still doing pretty well afaik.
This Nobel I think is mainly because AI has overwhelmingly dominated the public's perception of scientific/technological progress this year.
Interesting thought. I hear some voices saying theoretical physics is stuck with string theory, but am not really qualified to make a judgement.
Nobel prize was awarded to theoretical work in 2021: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/popular-infor...
"theoretical physics" is such a big and ambiguous concept that physicists tend not to use the word in discussions. Thereotical work often involves a lot of numerical simulation on super computers these days which are kind of their own "experiments". And it is usually more productive to just mention the specific field, e.g. astronomy, condensed matter, AMO etc, and you can be sure there is always a lot of discoveries in each area.
Physics is not stuck in string theory as physics is not just high energy theoretical particle physics. There's also more going on in high energy theoretical particle physics than just "string theory".
Much of the experimental action in recent decades has been in low energy theoretical particle physics. Down near absolute zero, where quantum effects dominate and many of the stranger predictions of quantum mechanics can be observed directly. The Nobel Prizes in physics for 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2003 were all based on experimental work down near absolute zero.
I've always sided with Feynman on this, and this proves him right: wtf do these people think they are appointing themselves fit to hand out trinkets and baubles on behalf of global scientific achievement?
It brings the award into disrepute, or at least in a Feynman way, exposes the inherent disreputability of awards themselves: who are they to award such a prize on behalf of physics?
Awards committees: self-serving self-appointed cliques of prestige chasers
In the old days, you’d get a knighthood or a peerage for such achievements.
But honestly, I’d still prefer cash.
Altough of course you're right, let's play devil's advocate an imagine a world without Nobel prices.
Laypeople needs a simple way to know who's who in advanced research fields, without Nobel prices (or any other commitee) we don't get to have that.
If people gets to ignore (more) such topics, it's likely politicians, and universities react accordingly, and funnel funds to other enterprises.
All these prices (I'd say writing prices are much worse) are typically super corrupt, but at least keep the field in people minds.
>> Laypeople needs a simple way to know who's who in advanced research fields, without Nobel prices (or any other commitee) we don't get to have that.
I think first you're underestimating "laypeople" which seems to include many scientists who are not physicists, and second you are forgetting that many of the scientists the "lay" public knows as the greatest of all times never received a Nobel, or any other famous prize: Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, etc etc.
Einstein received the Nobel prize:
Do laypeople know Kepler?
Einstein received the Nobel prize in 1921, but your point is still correct.
The economics of this topic have always been interesting to me, especially when compared to various other fields. What is there to incentivize people to enter STEM fields, and especially research?
As a point of comparison, there are ~540 premier league football players, with an average salary of 3.5 million pounds. (Yes, that's average, not median, but there's less than 20 of them that earn under 200k.) It's not _that_ exclusive of a club, and the remuneration is insanely disproportionate, compared to academics - I highly doubt there are hundreds of researches earning millions.
So, yes, it's pretty odd to have some random people dish out these prizes, and they are a drop in the pond. However, I personally feel it's way too little, and that the targets of the prizes are far more deserving - even if it's a popularity contest - than random entertainers (even if they are quite entertaining). But, it's up for argument, and the markets obviously don't seem to agree with me.
Weirdly, if you sniff the XHR from [0] (when it loads a new page), it claims there's 1171 players for 24/25. Except if you look at a few of the teams individually, they're between 30-35 players. Which is much more in line with your ~540 than their 1171.
> the remuneration is insanely disproportionate
I once pointed out that Kevin De Bruyne, on his own, gets paid almost half as much (~21M) as the entire salary cap of the Rugby Union Premiership (~2022, 50M) (to make the point there's much more money in football than rugby.)
If Physicists could split atoms with only their arms and legs with some safety equipment, I bet they would get paid even more than 3.5 million pound salary.
Splitting atoms? Nah, that's the easy one, you can do that yourself even if you're quadriplegic and in a coma.
Even fusion is high school science fair stuff.
Spallation, antiprotons, quark gluon plasmas? Now you're talking.
If this was true then we would find that jobs with physical labor pays much more than what it currently pays.
> Laypeople needs a simple way to know who's who in advanced research fields
What need of a layperson does knowing "who's who" in advanced research fields fill?
Here's another good question related to that: Who is qualified to simplify that so that the need is filled?
And who are the Oscar’s to give out awards to movies?
You can hand out the MJBurgess awards for non-NN-related physics today!
"This year’s laureates used tools from physics to construct methods that helped lay the foundation for today’s powerful machine learning."
Does this mean if I'd use a deep understanding of birds to design way more aerodynamic airplanes, I could get the Nobel prize in physiology/medicine? Don't get me wrong, their work is probably prize worthy, but shouldn't the Nobel prize in physics be awarded for discoveries in the _physical world_?
> Does this mean if I'd use a deep understanding of birds to design way more aerodynamic airplanes, I could get the Nobel prize in physiology/medicine?
Yes I think it does. But those planes would have to create one hell of a buzz!
I studied physics in the 90s and we had an NNs course, where most of the models were inspired by physics (MLPs was just one). NNs have been used since decades for identifying e.g. the trajectories of particles at CERN. I remember Hinton's work with Sejnowski (who probably should also be awarded). I was actually surprised to find out that Hinton was not a physicist by training
Obviously physicists take great interest in models of the brain or models of intelligence. All of physics is modeling , after all
All of physics is modeling but not all modeling is physics.
Not all modelling is physics, but a rather large part of modeling is. My PhD is in complex systems, and you would be surprised by the range of systems we did study. My work was on a more "traditional" field of high dimension fractal surfaces, but we had a student working on public transit models, another on ecological pattern formation, and so on.
At least the somewhat free interpretation of field boundaries is nothing new. The physicist Rutherford ("All science is either Physics or stamp collecting")[1] won the Chemistry Nobel Prize.
Influence and consideration of the Zeitgeist is also nothing new. Einstein got his prize for the discovery of the Photoelectric Effect and not Relativity.
[1] I know that some people have interpreted this quote in favor of the other sciences but I think that is far fetched.
Everything in the universe is a tool from physics - taps head smugly.
Everything is either mathemetics or stamp-collecting (ie social sciences).
Physics and chemistry are just applications of mathematics.
Boltzmann machines and associative memories originate in physics.
But, the starting point of Neural Networks in the ML/AI sense, is cybernetics + Rosenblatt's perceptron, research done mathematicians (who became early computer scientists)
This is price in physics. Not price in Neural Networks. Starting point of Hopfield's and Hintons work in recurrent networks was physics analogy.
Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC346238/
Their work does not advance the field of physics in any way, unless you insist to extend physics to each and every discipline out there.
That's why I wrote that it was unexpected.I'm not taking position of if this was deserved or undeserved, but this was clearly in the realm of physics and inspired by it.
Accepting wrong arguments in support of positions you have is not good way to live your life. It leads to constipation.
Hm, they have to fit them into Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, or Peace. I guess physics is the closest they can get without a gross missplacement? (Although you might be able to absue literature for LLMs?)
It's definitely not how "they" work. It's not like a committee choosing an achievement across all the fields and then trying to put it into one of the 5 buckets.
We have Turning Award, Fields Award and the other thousands of awards for achievements that can't be categorized as Physics/Biology/Economics/Chemistry.
They dont have to give them a nobel prize. They have not advanced any of those areas.
It highlights the evolving nature of scientific boundaries
Kahneman was awarded Nobel prize in economic sciences even though his work was, in fact, all about psychology.
Note that: There are no economic science Nobel prize.
Only one similar named price in the name and memory of Alfred Nobel, which some how, is allowed to be part of the Nobel prize celebration.
I guess my opinion is in minority, but i don't like that another prize hijacks the Nobel prize.
I IS a physics problem. Non physicists tend of think that the only areas being studied are high energy and/or cosmology, but modern physics covers a multitude of areas, including complex systems.
Does that mean that computer scientists who do neural network research should be considered physicists? Do physics journals accept submissions on neural networks research under the same justification?
Complex non-physics systems?
Looks like an award to increase the reputation of the Nobel prize. Similar to Obama receiving the peace prize then starting loads of wars.
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 diplomacy were rewarded. He ultimately failed to reach those goals (specially with the escalation on Afghanistan and the emergence of groups like ISIS), but tbh the Iran agreement and the Pacific trade agreement, killed and buried by the next administration, would have created a massive buffer and solution for the 2 hotspots we currently experience around the middle east (where terrorism is largely sponsored by Iran) and the Taiwan takeover by the CCP (would also be partially neutralised by the Pacific trade talks).
He was naive, in the way the world was naive to the ability to sacrifice prosperity that some leaders are capable of. He underestimated how dumb and suicidal putin could be, he underestimated how much China would be willing to sacrifice in terms of potential, he underestimated how much violence was latent and capable in the middle east. but his nobel peace prize was due to his campaign running on nuclear proliferation treaties and closer relationships with the muslim world which had been entirely antagonistic since Bush
> This is such a tired reply. The peace prize is not part of the same group as the other awards
It’s called a Nobel prize and it was established by the will of Alfred Nobel. So yes it’s the same
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The award shouldn't have been given for intentions, before he even did anything. We should not reward promises, but action. Even a long term member of the committee expressed regret in them giving it to Obama.
> 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 be banned by treaties, to continue to pretend that MAD is actually required for peace. In reality many nations do not have nukes and live in peace.)
> The least amount of wars in any century since WW2
:/
We still have a decade or so to get back to average
Also, WW2 being so utterly destructive, back to back after an arguably even worse global war, skews the stats a little.
Absolutely. This makes very little sense, IMO, and is a bad look for the committee, trying to claim 'physics' for something that clearly is not.
Could you elaborate, which wars did he start? (honest question)
In addition to the other replies, he is the only US president in modern history to explicitly authorize the assassination of a US citizen without a trial, and create a legal doctrine allowing future presidents to do so; and he was the major escalator of the use of drone strikes in war (the practice started with Bush, but it expanded many fold under Obama).
> […] [Obama] is the only US president in modern history to explicitly authorize the assassination of a US citizen without a trial
Just one of the many things Obama did that upsets me so much. The precedent he set with that is criminal.
Of course I’m against terrorism, but our government MUST NOT have the right to classify Americans as terrorists and just execute them without a trial—via drone strikes!
Most Americans likely don’t even know about what happened to the al-Awlaki’s, which is unfortunate.
"He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan."
> "He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan." https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
A bit different from "started a war".
Just because those countries could not realistically engage in a war with the US, seeing as they lack the necessary technology. Obviously, if you shoot fish in a barrel you're not starting a war with the fish, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing much to advance peace with the fish.
So the Great War with Pakistan turns out to be checks notes the raid on OBL compound?
Technically not the same thing but ironic/hypocritical nonetheless.
nah no way. i thought obama kool
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmIUm1E4OcI
so you can arguably add ukraine crisis to that list
Tangential to your question but not the premise of this subthread/post - he became president in Feb 2009 and got the award in October.
I don't think he started any new wars, but he inherited some and continued. Anyway, the point here should be the absurdity of a lot of Nobel awards and that stands - especially in his case.
I mean Trump was nominated for the award for fuck's sake! More than 2 or 3 times iirc. So anyway.
Like it or not, one of the reasons Obama got the award was his campaign promise of withdrawing from Iraq. Guess who actually did it?
The Nobel peace prize is awarded by a different institution than the science ones. And there are hundreds of people that can nominate, doesn't mean that a nomination reflects anything upon the committee that awards the prize.
Each of the Nobel prizes is awarded by a different committee from a different organization. The Nobel Peace prize was established at the same time and in the same way as the Literature, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Chemistry prizes (through Alfred Nobel's will). Of course, by its nature, it is the most political of the prizes.
The only Nobel prize that is separate is the Economics one, which was established much later and has no connection to Alfred Nobel (it is paid for by Sweden's central bank instead of the Nobel estate). But even that one is administered by the same Nobel foundation.
Obama intervened in the Libyan civil war. The outcome was disastrous for Libya (13 years of chaos and counting, the entrance of ISIS into Libya, the re-emergence of slavery in Libya, to name a few consequences). Obama blatantly violated the War Powers Act, which requires the President to seek Congressional approval for any war waged abroad after 60 days. The act was passed on the tail end of the Vietnam War, to prevent a repeat of things like Nixon invading Cambodia in secret. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but that power is absolutely meaningless if the President can just wage war wherever he chooses without a declaration.
Obama specifically won the Nobel Peace Prize for talking about his "vision of a world free from nuclear weapons" as a candidate. As President, he initiated a massive program to upgrade the US' nuclear arsenal. It made a complete mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize, though Kissinger also won the Nobel Peace Prize, so it's not as if the prize has any credibility anyways.
The outcome was positive for Libya, as it experienced only a fraction of human suffering compared to Syria where the United States did not intervene against the regime.
Either way Libya operation was spearheaded by France with Obama joining only reluctantly later.
Can you explain why starting a war (still ongoing), killing >10k people, and converting Africa's best functioning and richest country into one of the world's worst functioning places is positive outcome? I don't understand this.
The Syrian Civil war was clearly (in parts) engineered by the west. Here is some evidence.
- Western government spokesperson in 2003: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
- In 2014, the West officially intervened in the Syrian civil war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_the_Syrian_...
- Western government spokesperson in 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/...
- As of 2024 the West still has at least 1000 military personnel in Syria: https://theconversation.com/us-military-presence-in-syria-ca...
The US intervened in both civil wars, though in Syria its involvement early on was much more through funding and arming of various armed groups - notably Sunni fundamentalist groups. How you can say that the outcome was positive for Libya is beyond me. The country was utterly destroyed. It went from being the one of the most developed countries in Africa to a war-torn country with competing warlords and open slave markets.
>Looks like an award to increase the reputation of the Nobel prize.
If anything it stains the reputation of the Nobel prize to me. How seriously can you take the Nobel committee after this?
That was the whole point of nobel prize in first place lol.
I want a Schmidhuber livestream
This comment caught me off guard! I literally blew my coffee all over the table.
Schmidhuber invented everything. /s
Most commenters here don't know that Boltzmann machines and associative memories existed in condensed matter physics long before they were used in cognitive science or AI.
The Sherrington–Kirkpatrick model of spin glass is a Hopfield network with random initialization.
Boltzmann machine is Sherrington–Kirkpatrick model with external field.
This is price in physics given to novel use of stochastic spin-glass modelling. Unexpected, but saying this is not physics is not correct.
So if they used a genetic algorithm, they could have got the prize for biology?
The methods may be inspired by physics, but they have made no contribution to understanding physical laws or phenomena.
It's mathematical/CS work. The connection to actual physical laws or phenomena is even more tenuous than the prize for exoplanets a few years ago.
The Nobel prize physics committee has made itself a joke, and probably destroyed the credibility of the prize.
Also double descent was discovered already by physicists in 80s-90s
Hinton was never going to win the Nobel Prize while working for Google, right?
> Hinton was never going to win the Nobel Prize while working for Google, right?
This conspiracy theory makes no sense. Nobel prizes are awarded based on someone's life's work.
I think calling it a conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch. I could be wrong. I agree that's how it should be. But I don't get the impression there are lot of fans of Google in the Prize Committee. Either way, it's not something that matters too much. Just a thought.
what makes you say/think that?
are you saying that's part of his reason to leave Google?
That's my suspicion, yes.
The age too, and the fact that Google lost prestige in AI over the years.
It's the company that didn't see the potential of Transformers, and that presented a half-assed Bard when LLMs were already in production in other companies.
But Hinton was not in favor of LLMs anyway, he argued backprop is not what the brain does and that we should do better than these models. I'd say Google would be a great place for someone thinking like that.