February 10Feb 10 A Nobel prize in physics for something that is not physics tritonstationOctober 9, 2024 When I wrote about Nobel prizes a little while back, I did not expect to return to the subject. I assumed the prize this year would be awarded for some meritorious advance in laboratory physics, like last year’s prize “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter.” Instead, we find that the 2024 prize has been awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.” This is the Nobel prize in physics we’re talking about. One small issue: that’s not physics. I’ve been concerned for a long time with the interface between astronomy and physics – where they are distinct fields and where they overlap. One of the reasons I left physics as a grad student was because the string theorists were taking over. They were talking about phenomena that were tens of orders of magnitude beyond any conceivable experimental test. That sort of theoretical speculation is often fun, sometimes important, and very rarely relevant to physical reality. Lacking exposure to experimental tests or observational consequences, to my mind it was just that: speculation, not physics. Nearly forty years on, my concerns about string theory have not been misplaced. And while, in the strictest sense, I don’t think it qualifies as physics – it’s more of a physics-adjacent branch of mathematics – it is at least attempting to be physical theory. But machine learning is not physics. It’s computer science. Computers are a useful tool, to be sure. But programming them is no more physics than teaching a horse to count. I’m not sure we should even consider machine learning to be meritorious. It can be useful, but it is also a gateway drug to artificial intelligence (AI). I remember the more earnest proponents of early AI propounding on the virtues of LISP and how it would bring us AI – in the 1980s. All it brought us then was dystopian fantasies about killer robotsnuking the world. Despite the current hype, we have not now developed intelligent machines – what we’re calling AI is certainly artificial but not at all intelligent. It uses machine “learning” to reprocess existing information into repackaged forms. There is zero original thought, nothing resembling intelligence. Modern AI is, in essence, a bullshit generator. Now, we can all think of people who qualify as organic bullshit generators, but that begs the question: Why is the Nobel prize in physics being awarded for something that is clearly not physics? Maybe it has something to do with the hype around AI. I don’t know what the decision process was, but I do know that I am not the only scientist to have this reaction. Myself, I’m not mad, just disappointed. I’m not unique in feeling that physics has lost its way. This just emphasizes how far it has strayed. Apparently the Nobel committee is sensing the blow-back, as this poll currently appears on the award page: I… don’t think this helps their case. Did you know that molecules are made of atoms? Ergo all of chemistry is just applied atomic physics. I mean, it is a long-standing trope that physicists think every other science is just a lesser, applied form of physics. At the level of being based on the equations of physics, that’s almost kinda if not really true. So asserting that machine learning models are based on physics equations comes nowhere near to making machine learning into physics. It’s fancy programming, not physics. Well, there will be complaints about this one for a while, so I won’t pile on more. I guess if you give out 118 prizes since 1901, one of them has to rank 118th.
February 10Feb 10 Well, I probably agree with the fundamental proposition. But, as is common with Nobel Prizes, this was awarded for 40 year old work in statistical physics that led to the Boltzmann machine and subsequently to neural networks. So, when you dig into it, it's not that far removed from "traditional" physics.
February 10Feb 10 11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said: Well, I probably agree with the fundamental proposition. But, as is common with Nobel Prizes, this was awarded for 40 year old work in statistical physics that led to the Boltzmann machine and subsequently to neural networks. So, when you dig into it, it's not that far removed from "traditional" physics. As any physicist will tell you, everything is physics. Now, assume a perfectly spherical cow...
February 10Feb 10 1 hour ago, Bevo said: Despite the current hype, we have not now developed intelligent machines – what we’re calling AI is certainly artificial but not at all intelligent. It uses machine “learning” to reprocess existing information into repackaged forms. There is zero original thought, nothing resembling intelligence. Modern AI is, in essence, a bullshit generator. This is what we all need to understand.
February 10Feb 10 Could have been worse -- could have awarded it to Rafael Palmeiro. Edited February 10Feb 10 by Beau Vine
February 10Feb 10 13 hours ago, burntorangebongos said: RUUUUMMMMBLE IN THE JUUUUUUUUUUUNNNGLLLLLLE!!!!!!! I'm a tiger when i want love. I'm a snake when we disagree. Ohhhhh That's Bungle in the Jungle......nvm Edited February 10Feb 10 by Trey3216
February 10Feb 10 As any physicist will tell you, everything is physics. Now, assume a perfectly spherical cow...^Sounds like engineering to me.
February 10Feb 10 My hypothesis that scientists and scholars are just as susceptible to buzzword hype as executives and marketers has proven true.
February 10Feb 10 51 minutes ago, Goredho said: My hypothesis that scientists and scholars are just as susceptible to buzzword hype as executives and marketers has proven true. Holy shit! You're just now realizing this??
February 10Feb 10 1 hour ago, Goredho said: My hypothesis that scientists and scholars are just as susceptible to buzzword hype as executives and marketers has proven true. Newsflash: Scientists and scholars are people too.
February 10Feb 10 18 hours ago, Bevo said: A Nobel prize in physics for something that is not physics tritonstationOctober 9, 2024 When I wrote about Nobel prizes a little while back, I did not expect to return to the subject. I assumed the prize this year would be awarded for some meritorious advance in laboratory physics, like last year’s prize “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter.” Instead, we find that the 2024 prize has been awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.” This is the Nobel prize in physics we’re talking about. One small issue: that’s not physics. I’ve been concerned for a long time with the interface between astronomy and physics – where they are distinct fields and where they overlap. One of the reasons I left physics as a grad student was because the string theorists were taking over. They were talking about phenomena that were tens of orders of magnitude beyond any conceivable experimental test. That sort of theoretical speculation is often fun, sometimes important, and very rarely relevant to physical reality. Lacking exposure to experimental tests or observational consequences, to my mind it was just that: speculation, not physics. Nearly forty years on, my concerns about string theory have not been misplaced. And while, in the strictest sense, I don’t think it qualifies as physics – it’s more of a physics-adjacent branch of mathematics – it is at least attempting to be physical theory. But machine learning is not physics. It’s computer science. Computers are a useful tool, to be sure. But programming them is no more physics than teaching a horse to count. I’m not sure we should even consider machine learning to be meritorious. It can be useful, but it is also a gateway drug to artificial intelligence (AI). I remember the more earnest proponents of early AI propounding on the virtues of LISP and how it would bring us AI – in the 1980s. All it brought us then was dystopian fantasies about killer robotsnuking the world. Despite the current hype, we have not now developed intelligent machines – what we’re calling AI is certainly artificial but not at all intelligent. It uses machine “learning” to reprocess existing information into repackaged forms. There is zero original thought, nothing resembling intelligence. Modern AI is, in essence, a bullshit generator. Now, we can all think of people who qualify as organic bullshit generators, but that begs the question: Why is the Nobel prize in physics being awarded for something that is clearly not physics? Maybe it has something to do with the hype around AI. I don’t know what the decision process was, but I do know that I am not the only scientist to have this reaction. Myself, I’m not mad, just disappointed. I’m not unique in feeling that physics has lost its way. This just emphasizes how far it has strayed. Apparently the Nobel committee is sensing the blow-back, as this poll currently appears on the award page: I… don’t think this helps their case. Did you know that molecules are made of atoms? Ergo all of chemistry is just applied atomic physics. I mean, it is a long-standing trope that physicists think every other science is just a lesser, applied form of physics. At the level of being based on the equations of physics, that’s almost kinda if not really true. So asserting that machine learning models are based on physics equations comes nowhere near to making machine learning into physics. It’s fancy programming, not physics. Well, there will be complaints about this one for a while, so I won’t pile on more. I guess if you give out 118 prizes since 1901, one of them has to rank 118th. This is where I’m at as a nerd at heart. If quantum computing (years off) or AI lead to some amazing discovery in actual physics then sure but just AI is BS and someone truly worthy missed out. A damn shame.
February 10Feb 10 18 hours ago, Bevo said: A Nobel prize in physics for something that is not physics tritonstationOctober 9, 2024 When I wrote about Nobel prizes a little while back, I did not expect to return to the subject. I assumed the prize this year would be awarded for some meritorious advance in laboratory physics, like last year’s prize “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter.” Instead, we find that the 2024 prize has been awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.” This is the Nobel prize in physics we’re talking about. One small issue: that’s not physics. I’ve been concerned for a long time with the interface between astronomy and physics – where they are distinct fields and where they overlap. One of the reasons I left physics as a grad student was because the string theorists were taking over. They were talking about phenomena that were tens of orders of magnitude beyond any conceivable experimental test. That sort of theoretical speculation is often fun, sometimes important, and very rarely relevant to physical reality. Lacking exposure to experimental tests or observational consequences, to my mind it was just that: speculation, not physics. Nearly forty years on, my concerns about string theory have not been misplaced. And while, in the strictest sense, I don’t think it qualifies as physics – it’s more of a physics-adjacent branch of mathematics – it is at least attempting to be physical theory. But machine learning is not physics. It’s computer science. Computers are a useful tool, to be sure. But programming them is no more physics than teaching a horse to count. I’m not sure we should even consider machine learning to be meritorious. It can be useful, but it is also a gateway drug to artificial intelligence (AI). I remember the more earnest proponents of early AI propounding on the virtues of LISP and how it would bring us AI – in the 1980s. All it brought us then was dystopian fantasies about killer robotsnuking the world. Despite the current hype, we have not now developed intelligent machines – what we’re calling AI is certainly artificial but not at all intelligent. It uses machine “learning” to reprocess existing information into repackaged forms. There is zero original thought, nothing resembling intelligence. Modern AI is, in essence, a bullshit generator. Now, we can all think of people who qualify as organic bullshit generators, but that begs the question: Why is the Nobel prize in physics being awarded for something that is clearly not physics? Maybe it has something to do with the hype around AI. I don’t know what the decision process was, but I do know that I am not the only scientist to have this reaction. Myself, I’m not mad, just disappointed. I’m not unique in feeling that physics has lost its way. This just emphasizes how far it has strayed. Apparently the Nobel committee is sensing the blow-back, as this poll currently appears on the award page: I… don’t think this helps their case. Did you know that molecules are made of atoms? Ergo all of chemistry is just applied atomic physics. I mean, it is a long-standing trope that physicists think every other science is just a lesser, applied form of physics. At the level of being based on the equations of physics, that’s almost kinda if not really true. So asserting that machine learning models are based on physics equations comes nowhere near to making machine learning into physics. It’s fancy programming, not physics. Well, there will be complaints about this one for a while, so I won’t pile on more. I guess if you give out 118 prizes since 1901, one of them has to rank 118th. This is where I’m at as a nerd at heart. If quantum computing (years off) or AI lead to some amazing discovery in actual physics then sure but just AI is BS and someone truly worthy missed out. A damn shame.
February 10Feb 10 5 hours ago, Nivek said: ^Sounds like engineering to me. It would also need to neglect friction and assume sin(x) = x.
February 10Feb 10 9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said: It would also need to neglect friction and assume sin(x) = x. Hey, pendulum boy, it works pretty well up to about 30 deg.
February 10Feb 10 6 hours ago, Goredho said: My hypothesis that scientists and scholars are just as susceptible to buzzword hype as executives and marketers has proven true. That kind of thinking could get you the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics.
February 11Feb 11 2 hours ago, miguelito said: That kind of thinking could get you the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics. I’m more likely to win Mr Congeniality in pursuit of the Masturbatory Arts.
February 11Feb 11 2 hours ago, miguelito said: I hear that competition is pretty stiff. Sure, but I'll beat them all with speed. There's a reason they call me "The Fastest Hands in the West". Edited February 11Feb 11 by HornOnTheBayou
February 11Feb 11 13 hours ago, miguelito said: That kind of thinking could get you the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics Psychics FIFY
February 11Feb 11 19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said: Hey, pendulum boy, it works pretty well up to about 30 deg. You're at almost 5% error by the time you hit 30 degrees. Be better.
February 11Feb 11 13 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said: You're at almost 5% error by the time you hit 30 degrees. Be better. We're talking engineering here. 5% error ain't nothing.
February 11Feb 11 14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said: We're talking engineering here. 5% error ain't nothing. This doesn’t say what you think it says.
February 11Feb 11 43 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said: This doesn’t say what you think it says. I'm pretty comfortable with my bona fides.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.