@@Muskar2 "This movie has been made by these 27 companies". And yet you don't have seen anyone claiming it should be presented by all of them separately. I'm still waiting for a reason there should be a "shared video" feature. What is the advantage or the problem it should solve?
@@IIARROWS I think it would be cool. Maybe not all the time, because often they are definitely just feat someone but for some occasions should be possible
John Hopfield wasn't the first to describe the formalism which has been subsequently popularised as "Hopfield networks". And probably the Nobel Committee should have chosen someone like Shun-ichi Amari for the third spot on the prize. It also seems much fairer to the wider field and long history of neuroscientists, computer scientists, physicists, and so on to call them "associative memory networks" and not "Hopfield networks", i.e. Hopfield was definitely not the first/only to propose the network some call "Hopfield networks". For instance, after the proposal of Marr (1971), many similar models of associative memory were proposed, e.g., those of Nakano (1972), Amari (1972), Little (1974), and Stanley (1976), which all have a very similar (or exactly the same) formalism as Hopfield's 1982 paper. Today, notable researchers in this field correct their students' papers to replace instances of "Hopfield networks" with "associative memory networks (sometimes referred to as Hopfield networks)" or something similar. I would encourage you to do the same in your current/future videos. I deeply regret making a similar mistake regarding this topic in one of my earlier papers. However, I am glad to correct the record now and in the future. Refs: D Marr. Simple memory: a theory for archicortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 262(841):23-81, July 1971. Kaoru Nakano. Associatron-a model of associative memory. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-2(3):380-388, 1972. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1972.4309133. S.-I. Amari. Learning patterns and pattern sequences by self-organizing nets of threshold elements. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-21(11):1197-1206, 1972. doi: 10.1109/T-C.1972.223477. W.A. Little. The existence of persistent states in the brain. Mathematical Biosciences, 19(1):101-120, 1974. ISSN 0025-5564. doi: doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(74)90031-5. J. C. Stanley. Simulation studies of a temporal sequence memory model. Biological Cybernetics, 24(3):121-137, Sep 1976. ISSN 1432-0770. doi: 10.1007/BF00364115.
The irony is, science started without any disciplinary borders. It was just “natural sciences.” Those borders peaked and we’ve been slowly moving back to Natural Sciences ever since.
@@mapleveritas2698 I agree. I much prefer calling it witchcraft. Tbh, math creates a lot of techniques that are useful to describe other fields. math is closer to computer science than the natural sciences, but math can exist in its own universe while computer science actively pursues the sciences. Because we're dealing with structures, it's easier to create the tool that will understand them faster than spike patterns in our brains.
As an MSc AI student at UvA I took a course in 'theory of complex systems' where statistical physics was at the forefront. I was fimiliar with the concept of energy based models from my deep learning/ML courses and I could see the connection to neural networks where the particles in the system find an orientation that minimises system energy. This is very analogous to stochastic gradient descent in multi layer perceptrons (term coined by Hinton himself). It's really cool to study AI right now :D
Physics is the application of the Scientific Method to probe the physical world. So where in the work does it show that artificial intelligence is a fundamental process that governs our physical world? I mean, applying the redefinition you like, we should be assigning Physics prizes to chemists, as everything they do is governed by quantum mechanics anyway. The Nobel Prize for Physics HAS BEEN STOLEN from people doing actual physics with this purposeful blurring of lines. At the end of the day, it's the Nobel Committee that decides how to hand out the prize, but if the criteria are wishy washy, so is the prize itself. The gravitas behind the Nobel Prize just took a big hit.
I love how this channel keeps the early 2010s style of video journalism, only thing they've changed is adding visual edits versus literally drawing on a pad.
This was a great video on a very interesting topic. And even moreso, very well edited to show the crossover of the fields and expertise. Thanks for creating this and sharing it with us!
Am I right to think the physical models ultimately form the path to the gradient descent approach itself? The high-level explanations here seem similar.
"Yes, I believe the fundamental research in machine learning, such as deep neural networks, is inherently physics. Reality is filled with intelligent systems, where intelligence is a sort of emergent property. Therefore, studying these systems is fundamental to physics, as it is the goal to understand our reality
That’s not what it is at all. It’s because the development of hopfield networks uses concepts (e.g. boltzman machines) from statistical chemistry/physics.
@Jacosmi Yeah. But if you take closer grasp to what is fundamental. You see that yeah there was a gap in physics. Because the thing is just reality has intelligence agent how can we studies those fundamental laws. Its Ml and some other biology research. Look into Bayesian mechanics for something like bayesian inference
Personally I really don't care much for the Nobel prize, I worked in science for a long time and the one thing I hated about it is the politics (internally and between groups and institutes). I worked there for the science, in pure form preferably. I was that guy that came in in the weekends, while it wasn't required at all for my level, but I just liked doing it. Later on I started to see more of the inner workings and the management of things... and I bailed out eventually. Still love science, not so much the current implementation. And a prize kinda makes that point in a symbolic way, science isn't about prizes or competition... well, it shouldn't be.
I'd think the purpose of the Nobel Prize now is mostly about providing inspiration for younger people to get into science. Whether the prize fulfils that purpose or not is another question ....
Seriously...if anything the underlying math is what is used and common to both physics and cs..I don't get this prize. Turing awards and Fields Medals are just as prestigious.
Too many things sus about this award: First the timing. Why AI in both chemistry and physics in the same year? (An eminent researcher even joked that the economics prize would go to Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia). And why does this coincide with the rise of LLMs when neither set of winners used LLMs as they are today for their original work? And let's not forget that these awards have far-reaching consequences, especially for the long list of those who don't get recognized. What is the need to recognize someone who already has a Turing award when there is a long queue of researchers waiting for their moment? This is basically is a giant middle finger to all those people: you toil away your whole life pushing the frontiers of physics but somebody who made a few vague connections between physics and curve fitting gets all the glory. Maybe you could make a case for Hopfield, but what did Hinton personally do for physics with his work? In contrast, the chemistry winners actually did some chemistry with AI. Some here say it's about contributions to mankind using the field, but Hinton doesn't fit in that category. Just because something's named after Boltzmann doesn't make it physics.
My 1970s PhD (first degrees Physics _and_ Computational Science) was in what I believe the Nobel Committee called _computational chemistry_ when Michael Levitt became a laureate for his work in that field. His initial work with Bob Diamond was in protein folding, but when that seemed intractable he moved into my field - drug-receptor or enzyme interactions and got the NP. You swine, sir! (It's worse than if he'd run off with my wife). His and my work used lots of clever maths and computing to predict the interaction of molecules. Is that physics, maths, chemistry or computer science? What worries me about the trend to use AI is that it is a black-box model that predicts better than human-constructed models, but it does not feed back into our intuitions, so does not help us understand, or create future theories/models. I hope I am wrong, and perhaps a video could be produced to explain why I am.
My sense is that you are correct and that these black box models do not help us understand the task any more than the less accurate explainable models. On the other hand, they do free up researchers to understand downstream problems. Maybe it’s less important that we can’t explain why a protein folds in a particular way if it allows us to understand odor receptors or virus spikes.
these black boxes will be objects that we study as we do physical phenomena. by altering variables and studying the interactions between the inputs and outputs, we can begin to understand what “intuitions” and whatever layer of abstraction these machines operate on to deliver results.
@@accountaccount4188 I prefer to study reality rather than a derivative of reality. Of course, one might argue that our reality is the same kind of interpretation as that expressed by AI, but that leads to the risk of rectal regression.
@@frogandspanner as the younger one in this conversation, i see the view that studying AI’s interpretation of reality as rectal regression to be a fundamentalist view of epistemology. less that it is a derivative of reality. more so that structures and patterns observed in between different foundational models are an efficient understanding of reality-from which we can derive “our” own understandings and build intuition. just a tool to forward science al a computers in the second half of the 20th century.
@@accountaccount4188 As somebody who has kept the original Amal Monobloc carburettors on my 1966 Norton 650SS, and am therefore Amal retentive, I could not agree more.
I still don't understand why an achievement in computer science gets an Nobel Prize in Physics. Just because, there is Boltzmann in it? Or you can describe an neuronal network as particle interaction? It doesn't make it Physics. Economy uses physics models as well, it doesn't make it an achievement in Physics neither. "Physical Systems"? Humans are physical systems as well, it does not make it an achievement in Physics. The "problem" is not that a computer scientist gets the price, you don't have to be an Physicist to get it. Or that Computer Science isn't important or no hard science. But it should be an achievement in Physics to get the Nobel Prize in Physics. If computer science led to new insights in Physics, it would totally fine. But here all the explanations are the other way around. Physics is used to make progress in Computer Science, which is great. But it is not Physics. Like chemistry is not Physics or Biology is not Physics. But what the heck, who cares. Now, Physics and Chemistry are AI slop as well.
If these people would have won the Nobel prize in physics had AI not taken off, then this is indeed a prize for physics. But if this is only considered important work because of the success of the computer science applications, then it’s not a physics prize. Even if inspired by physics and statistical mechanics.
So I was just watching S1 E10 of Elementary and Sherlock mentions a computer programming language called Malbolge. I think you should do a video on that. If you dare.
I think using computer science to help ones maths, using Physics for CompSci or either or why not let all these aspects that has so many applications in these other fields
It is strange that the Nobel is give to something which is not complete 'measurement' per-se. Einstein et al did not get the Nobel until 'somebody' else tested the photoelectric effect. Similarly Salam/Weinberg did not get the Nobel till the measurement of the W/Z...
As neither Feynman nor Sagan said, but I bet they'd have agreed with, _"Any discipline with 'science' in its title, isn't."_ The field that is sufficiently fundamental to be paired like this with Physics really shouldn't be called _"Computer Science",_ or even _"Computing Science"._ it's simply _Computing._ Imperial College London gets this right (although then they go spoil it by shoving Computing in Engineering.)
Well deserved Noble Prize. Machine learning is one of the biggest and greatest inventions humanity has ever made. Physics is the closest category of all six.
It makes absolute sense to me that computer science serves as a useful tool to every imaginable field out there. Mike Pound is spot on, so many discoveries are now computer led. I would rather have nobel prize for computer science than economics or the "peace" prize.
BTW I am not saying that 'we' do not need computer science, at the same time this does not mean that Biology is Physics (we need animals (human) to study physics)... As computer science is not physics.
You could definitely award a nobel prize for physics that happens to be enabled by machine learning (and thereby also credit the developer of that method)... but I strongly disagree with this years prize. This is clearly a political decision.
Normally I love Computerphile but in this case, if you didn't already understand what was going on, this wouldn't have helped. The explanation of neural networks was too brief. Maybe the real truth is that there was nothing going on in the world of physics to give the prize to?
So why are we not assigning Nobel Prizes in Physics to economists using physical models to model economic activity? I mean the investment houses are littered with physics majors on Wall Street. This sounds more like a way of blurting lines so more people can get a shot of winning a prestigious award, than actually doing the work of what constitutes physics, or what is computer science, what is economics, and so on. If anything, this awarding to the Nobel Prize of Physics has caused more harm to both the prize and the Nobel committee itself. I'm not joking here. I've STOPPED ascribing the gravitas to the Nobel Prize in Physics, because the people doing the awarding are just doing a hack job of where the boundaries lie, and not undertaking a more focused process that helps to define where a discipline starts and ends. And if you tell me that there are no hard lines, then why bother with the categories? Just hand out Nobel Prizes in Science, Engineering, because that's the nature of the fuzziness between what people commonly think as separate disciplines. As far as I'm concerned, this move devalued people who actually grind away at physics labs, trying to prove a theory, or trying to probe in a physical realm we have low visibility in.
I thought that Nobel Prize is given to technologies that has changed the world in a positive manner. AI is yet to prove that it is capable of changing the world. How was AI selected for Nobel Prize?
There is Nobel prize in economics. The economics prize is actually the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is also administered by the Nobel Foundation is commonly lumped together with the Nobel prizes though.
Mathmatics is at the fundamental level of everything though. Theoretical physics can win nobel prizes even though it may not describe something ever physically detected. Hopkins work was about exploring the fundamental systems that allow memory to emerge in the physical world. People only consider it a comp sci paper because its currently applied in the comp sci field with electronics but it can be applied to other fields to create similar networks. People are literally studying artificial brains right now so you could argue its even biology. Its just a change of medium but the fundamentals are the same.
It took them too long to recognize that AI/CS and Phyic are just one field. AI/CS is taking over physics anyway. How many games are written to model physics principles in order to be realistic, and how much physics will depend on AI is a no-brainer. Congrats to the recipients.
People just assume that the Nobel Prize is supposed to award contributions in the field. However, this is not the case. The Nobel Prize was created to award contributions to MANKIND using the field of research. Both winners used physics to contribute to mankind; it was about time to be awarded for that.
IMHO, whether AI provides a net benefit or a net detriment to mankind is yet to be determined. One of the laureates has after making the discovery started warning people about the dangers of AI, and has resigned from Google's AI projects in protest for how they are not taking AI safety seriously. One of the Economy Prize laureates this year has written critically about the impact of AI on the economy, claiming that it will really only benefit the already wealthy.
I’ve learned nothing from this comment, can you provide a link to the helpful content you’re putting out in the world. These are busy professors taking time to have a conversation. Please 🙏 be considerate but it is okay if it’s not your favorite
Artificial intelligence is (most likely) the product of, and completely controlled by, an alien intelligence. In my opinion, Alien life is taking advantage of human brains and using artificial intelligence to destroy humanity. This is my wonderful idea, and also the alien’s idea! Khalid Masood Punjab, Pakistan.
The 60 symbols version is one second longer on my end. what kind of content are you holding out on us that you’re giving away to the physics nerds?
The Computerphile channel just refuses to accept the uncertainty in measuring the length of the video.
Let’s just blame floating point precision for that one
Possibly RUclips disallows identical videos?
I presume it didn't occur to you that you could watch the other video and find out for yourself?
They probably left an int() hidden in there somewhere. These guys just don't know when to halt.
class CompScience extends Physics { }
it is actually Physics Script imports Computer Science Module
Inheritance 🤮
composition over inheritance
I actually understand this 🤓
As soon as I saw this comment I knew it must be some India. Am I right?
RUclips should've implemented shared video long long time ago
Why?
This video was made by these 27 channels
@@Muskar2 "This movie has been made by these 27 companies". And yet you don't have seen anyone claiming it should be presented by all of them separately.
I'm still waiting for a reason there should be a "shared video" feature.
What is the advantage or the problem it should solve?
@@Muskar2 I know a video where around ten RUclipsrs had equal parts
@@IIARROWS I think it would be cool. Maybe not all the time, because often they are definitely just feat someone but for some occasions should be possible
I just discovered this channel and I’m already hooked! The way you break down topics is brilliant. Subscribed immediately!
John Hopfield wasn't the first to describe the formalism which has been subsequently popularised as "Hopfield networks". And probably the Nobel Committee should have chosen someone like Shun-ichi Amari for the third spot on the prize.
It also seems much fairer to the wider field and long history of neuroscientists, computer scientists, physicists, and so on to call them "associative memory networks" and not "Hopfield networks", i.e. Hopfield was definitely not the first/only to propose the network some call "Hopfield networks". For instance, after the proposal of Marr (1971), many similar models of associative memory were proposed, e.g., those of Nakano (1972), Amari (1972), Little (1974), and Stanley (1976), which all have a very similar (or exactly the same) formalism as Hopfield's 1982 paper.
Today, notable researchers in this field correct their students' papers to replace instances of "Hopfield networks" with "associative memory networks (sometimes referred to as Hopfield networks)" or something similar. I would encourage you to do the same in your current/future videos.
I deeply regret making a similar mistake regarding this topic in one of my earlier papers. However, I am glad to correct the record now and in the future.
Refs:
D Marr. Simple memory: a theory for archicortex. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 262(841):23-81, July 1971.
Kaoru Nakano. Associatron-a model of associative memory. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-2(3):380-388, 1972. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1972.4309133.
S.-I. Amari. Learning patterns and pattern sequences by self-organizing nets of threshold elements. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-21(11):1197-1206, 1972. doi: 10.1109/T-C.1972.223477.
W.A. Little. The existence of persistent states in the brain. Mathematical Biosciences, 19(1):101-120, 1974. ISSN 0025-5564. doi: doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(74)90031-5.
J. C. Stanley. Simulation studies of a temporal sequence memory model. Biological Cybernetics, 24(3):121-137, Sep 1976. ISSN 1432-0770. doi: 10.1007/BF00364115.
Turing award winner Leslie Lamport always refers to physics when he talks about his papers and algorithms.
The irony is, science started without any disciplinary borders. It was just “natural sciences.” Those borders peaked and we’ve been slowly moving back to Natural Sciences ever since.
I would argue that mathematics is not natural science.
@@mapleveritas2698 I agree. I much prefer calling it witchcraft. Tbh, math creates a lot of techniques that are useful to describe other fields. math is closer to computer science than the natural sciences, but math can exist in its own universe while computer science actively pursues the sciences. Because we're dealing with structures, it's easier to create the tool that will understand them faster than spike patterns in our brains.
As an MSc AI student at UvA I took a course in 'theory of complex systems' where statistical physics was at the forefront. I was fimiliar with the concept of energy based models from my deep learning/ML courses and I could see the connection to neural networks where the particles in the system find an orientation that minimises system energy. This is very analogous to stochastic gradient descent in multi layer perceptrons (term coined by Hinton himself). It's really cool to study AI right now :D
Even Nobel Winning Physicist jobs aren't safe from AI.
1:19 I like his way of thinking. ML didn't "steal the Nobel Prize" from physicists, but owes a lot to physics and the Novel prize is asserting such.
Physics is the application of the Scientific Method to probe the physical world. So where in the work does it show that artificial intelligence is a fundamental process that governs our physical world? I mean, applying the redefinition you like, we should be assigning Physics prizes to chemists, as everything they do is governed by quantum mechanics anyway. The Nobel Prize for Physics HAS BEEN STOLEN from people doing actual physics with this purposeful blurring of lines. At the end of the day, it's the Nobel Committee that decides how to hand out the prize, but if the criteria are wishy washy, so is the prize itself. The gravitas behind the Nobel Prize just took a big hit.
How much exactly? What about neuroscience and psychology? What about McCulloch and Pitts? They don’t get credits?
I love how this channel keeps the early 2010s style of video journalism, only thing they've changed is adding visual edits versus literally drawing on a pad.
There's a typo in the video description, it's called the Ising Model not "icing" (though that does sound delicious)
This was a great video on a very interesting topic. And even moreso, very well edited to show the crossover of the fields and expertise. Thanks for creating this and sharing it with us!
I love Phil's passion! I wish I had Physics Professors like that.
It is time we had a Nobel prize in Mathematics which underpins EVERYTHING with an elegance that is simply mind boggling. 😊
So, why bring up the Ising model and then not explain anything?
8:54 Coffee, a Reversi board, and a pair of dice --- tools of the Physicist
There are applied mathematical concepts of statistical mechanics in artificial neural networks
I am just glad us statistical & computational physicist get more recognition
What i kept from this is that there are a couple of lucky/happy souls that have both Prof. Moriarty and Prof. Pound as their supervisors! 🎉🎉🎉
You should add & chemistry
Chemophile
Exactly. Also start the "physicsphile" channel and add it to the mix.
EPIC POUND Town with Physics DOCTOR Moriarty(always remember the Sherlock name!)
Backpropagation -> self-correction mechanism for ANN
A Brady video with both Mike Pound _and_ Philip Moriarty, MP and PM, two of my favorite characters in the Haranverse?! 😮
What a wonderful video! Thanks!
Am I right to think the physical models ultimately form the path to the gradient descent approach itself? The high-level explanations here seem similar.
Moriarty makes me want to go back to school and learn from his classes
"Yes, I believe the fundamental research in machine learning, such as deep neural networks, is inherently physics. Reality is filled with intelligent systems, where intelligence is a sort of emergent property. Therefore, studying these systems is fundamental to physics, as it is the goal to understand our reality
That’s not what it is at all. It’s because the development of hopfield networks uses concepts (e.g. boltzman machines) from statistical chemistry/physics.
@Jacosmi Yeah. But if you take closer grasp to what is fundamental. You see that yeah there was a gap in physics. Because the thing is just reality has intelligence agent how can we studies those fundamental laws. Its Ml and some other biology research. Look into Bayesian mechanics for something like bayesian inference
Agree with Mike’s point at 4:30
Personally I really don't care much for the Nobel prize, I worked in science for a long time and the one thing I hated about it is the politics (internally and between groups and institutes). I worked there for the science, in pure form preferably. I was that guy that came in in the weekends, while it wasn't required at all for my level, but I just liked doing it. Later on I started to see more of the inner workings and the management of things... and I bailed out eventually. Still love science, not so much the current implementation. And a prize kinda makes that point in a symbolic way, science isn't about prizes or competition... well, it shouldn't be.
Oh god forbid we celebrate and reward science and scientist. No, only the finance people should have a lot of money, fame and recognition. /s
🤮 🤮
citation count and impact factors are strong predictors of academic career success, the whole system is literally a popularity contest
I'd think the purpose of the Nobel Prize now is mostly about providing inspiration for younger people to get into science.
Whether the prize fulfils that purpose or not is another question ....
@@erroredhackerI know, that's what I mean with the problem these days
@@kapoioBCSDid I mention businesses anywhere? All science should be celebrated, what's the point of a prize?
Mathematicians have entered the chat… lmao
Seriously...if anything the underlying math is what is used and common to both physics and cs..I don't get this prize. Turing awards and Fields Medals are just as prestigious.
Too many things sus about this award:
First the timing. Why AI in both chemistry and physics in the same year? (An eminent researcher even joked that the economics prize would go to Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia). And why does this coincide with the rise of LLMs when neither set of winners used LLMs as they are today for their original work?
And let's not forget that these awards have far-reaching consequences, especially for the long list of those who don't get recognized. What is the need to recognize someone who already has a Turing award when there is a long queue of researchers waiting for their moment? This is basically is a giant middle finger to all those people: you toil away your whole life pushing the frontiers of physics but somebody who made a few vague connections between physics and curve fitting gets all the glory.
Maybe you could make a case for Hopfield, but what did Hinton personally do for physics with his work? In contrast, the chemistry winners actually did some chemistry with AI. Some here say it's about contributions to mankind using the field, but Hinton doesn't fit in that category. Just because something's named after Boltzmann doesn't make it physics.
It's simple. AI is taking over the world and gave the prize to itself. Duh. 😁
@@blucat4 How could I have been so naive?!
@@saikirannarayanaswami1618 😄
Yep they should have made another category for computer science 😮
My 1970s PhD (first degrees Physics _and_ Computational Science) was in what I believe the Nobel Committee called _computational chemistry_ when Michael Levitt became a laureate for his work in that field. His initial work with Bob Diamond was in protein folding, but when that seemed intractable he moved into my field - drug-receptor or enzyme interactions and got the NP. You swine, sir! (It's worse than if he'd run off with my wife). His and my work used lots of clever maths and computing to predict the interaction of molecules.
Is that physics, maths, chemistry or computer science?
What worries me about the trend to use AI is that it is a black-box model that predicts better than human-constructed models, but it does not feed back into our intuitions, so does not help us understand, or create future theories/models. I hope I am wrong, and perhaps a video could be produced to explain why I am.
My sense is that you are correct and that these black box models do not help us understand the task any more than the less accurate explainable models.
On the other hand, they do free up researchers to understand downstream problems. Maybe it’s less important that we can’t explain why a protein folds in a particular way if it allows us to understand odor receptors or virus spikes.
these black boxes will be objects that we study as we do physical phenomena. by altering variables and studying the interactions between the inputs and outputs, we can begin to understand what “intuitions” and whatever layer of abstraction these machines operate on to deliver results.
@@accountaccount4188 I prefer to study reality rather than a derivative of reality. Of course, one might argue that our reality is the same kind of interpretation as that expressed by AI, but that leads to the risk of rectal regression.
@@frogandspanner as the younger one in this conversation, i see the view that studying AI’s interpretation of reality as rectal regression to be a fundamentalist view of epistemology.
less that it is a derivative of reality. more so that structures and patterns observed in between different foundational models are an efficient understanding of reality-from which we can derive “our” own understandings and build intuition. just a tool to forward science al a computers in the second half of the 20th century.
@@accountaccount4188 As somebody who has kept the original Amal Monobloc carburettors on my 1966 Norton 650SS, and am therefore Amal retentive, I could not agree more.
I still don't understand why an achievement in computer science gets an Nobel Prize in Physics. Just because, there is Boltzmann in it? Or you can describe an neuronal network as particle interaction? It doesn't make it Physics. Economy uses physics models as well, it doesn't make it an achievement in Physics neither. "Physical Systems"? Humans are physical systems as well, it does not make it an achievement in Physics. The "problem" is not that a computer scientist gets the price, you don't have to be an Physicist to get it. Or that Computer Science isn't important or no hard science. But it should be an achievement in Physics to get the Nobel Prize in Physics. If computer science led to new insights in Physics, it would totally fine. But here all the explanations are the other way around. Physics is used to make progress in Computer Science, which is great. But it is not Physics. Like chemistry is not Physics or Biology is not Physics.
But what the heck, who cares. Now, Physics and Chemistry are AI slop as well.
Agreed… I’m starting to feel like physics is desperate to claim computer science. Quite weird.
Agreed. It’s a joke. Nobel prize just wanna get involved in the AI hype
@@ai_outlineyou have no idea what you’re talking about. This is statistical physics.
@@Jacosmi hahaha computer science now is statistical physics? Something non tangible, abstract, an artefact from the mind, just became physical 💀💀💀
It's because there was nothing much in the world of physics to give the prize to.
We are waiting for you to play on any Othello tournament Prof. Moriarty ❤ it would be lovely!
If these people would have won the Nobel prize in physics had AI not taken off, then this is indeed a prize for physics. But if this is only considered important work because of the success of the computer science applications, then it’s not a physics prize. Even if inspired by physics and statistical mechanics.
Oh boy! A computerphile and a sixty symbols video to watch! oh wait...
I always thought there should be more talk and colaboration between the sciences.
Juan's wearing a really nice shirt.
So I was just watching S1 E10 of Elementary and Sherlock mentions a computer programming language called Malbolge. I think you should do a video on that. If you dare.
Hah! Wasn't it Ernest Rutherford who said something like "all science is either physics or stamp collecting”? :)
I think using computer science to help ones maths, using Physics for CompSci or either or why not let all these aspects that has so many applications in these other fields
what we need is, artificial wisdom.
i think we have enough ai.
And applied ML won the Chemistry prize too!
Has anyone ever won the Nobel Prize, Turing Award and Fields Medal? Or even come close?
Half the chemistry prize also went to computer scientists
It is strange that the Nobel is give to something which is not complete 'measurement' per-se. Einstein et al did not get the Nobel until 'somebody' else tested the photoelectric effect. Similarly Salam/Weinberg did not get the Nobel till the measurement of the W/Z...
As neither Feynman nor Sagan said, but I bet they'd have agreed with, _"Any discipline with 'science' in its title, isn't."_
The field that is sufficiently fundamental to be paired like this with Physics really shouldn't be called _"Computer Science",_ or even _"Computing Science"._ it's simply _Computing._ Imperial College London gets this right (although then they go spoil it by shoving Computing in Engineering.)
It looks to me this should have been a mathematics prize and all would have been well.
True but there is no math nobel prize unfortunately.
@@dibby1045Fields medal exist
Wouldn’t it be easier to add a Nobel prize for Computer Science?
Well deserved Noble Prize. Machine learning is one of the biggest and greatest inventions humanity has ever made. Physics is the closest category of all six.
AI threatens even Nobel Prize-winning physicists' jobs.
Awwww, I thought there would be two different videos...
Established turbulence, restart, nova chronus
Ironically this is the version I saw first, even though I study physics XD
it's points on a cone.
And yet, the ones that take the credit are launching companies like "Open"AI. That has to stop.
“Setting these boundaries between disciplines is a bit silly.” So, don’t call the prize a “Physics prize” then! 😅
It makes absolute sense to me that computer science serves as a useful tool to every imaginable field out there.
Mike Pound is spot on, so many discoveries are now computer led.
I would rather have nobel prize for computer science than economics or the "peace" prize.
You get the Nobel Prize for Interdisciplinary Research
Which ones aren't interdisciplinary now?
BTW I am not saying that 'we' do not need computer science, at the same time this does not mean that Biology is Physics (we need animals (human) to study physics)... As computer science is not physics.
If you had to ask is this Physics or CS us an enough answer taht it is not Physics
You could definitely award a nobel prize for physics that happens to be enabled by machine learning (and thereby also credit the developer of that method)... but I strongly disagree with this years prize. This is clearly a political decision.
Normally I love Computerphile but in this case, if you didn't already understand what was going on, this wouldn't have helped. The explanation of neural networks was too brief. Maybe the real truth is that there was nothing going on in the world of physics to give the prize to?
finally ising model
So why are we not assigning Nobel Prizes in Physics to economists using physical models to model economic activity? I mean the investment houses are littered with physics majors on Wall Street. This sounds more like a way of blurting lines so more people can get a shot of winning a prestigious award, than actually doing the work of what constitutes physics, or what is computer science, what is economics, and so on. If anything, this awarding to the Nobel Prize of Physics has caused more harm to both the prize and the Nobel committee itself. I'm not joking here. I've STOPPED ascribing the gravitas to the Nobel Prize in Physics, because the people doing the awarding are just doing a hack job of where the boundaries lie, and not undertaking a more focused process that helps to define where a discipline starts and ends. And if you tell me that there are no hard lines, then why bother with the categories? Just hand out Nobel Prizes in Science, Engineering, because that's the nature of the fuzziness between what people commonly think as separate disciplines. As far as I'm concerned, this move devalued people who actually grind away at physics labs, trying to prove a theory, or trying to probe in a physical realm we have low visibility in.
I thought that Nobel Prize is given to technologies that has changed the world in a positive manner. AI is yet to prove that it is capable of changing the world. How was AI selected for Nobel Prize?
Peter Thiel - computer science is just simulation,
Nobel Price - computer science is physics
If there are Nobel prizes for Economics, Literature and "Peace" then why not Computer Science?
There is Nobel prize in economics. The economics prize is actually the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is also administered by the Nobel Foundation is commonly lumped together with the Nobel prizes though.
👀👍🇮🇪⚓
I’m sorry, but I still think computer science is mathematics 😅 the breakthrough was not in physics nor anything physical
Mathmatics is at the fundamental level of everything though. Theoretical physics can win nobel prizes even though it may not describe something ever physically detected.
Hopkins work was about exploring the fundamental systems that allow memory to emerge in the physical world. People only consider it a comp sci paper because its currently applied in the comp sci field with electronics but it can be applied to other fields to create similar networks.
People are literally studying artificial brains right now so you could argue its even biology. Its just a change of medium but the fundamentals are the same.
It took them too long to recognize that AI/CS and Phyic are just one field. AI/CS is taking over physics anyway. How many games are written to model physics principles in order to be realistic, and how much physics will depend on AI is a no-brainer. Congrats to the recipients.
"memories are stored in a landscape"
hmmm. im immature
phil 😂
Well all the science fields are just second-rate philosophy anyway so what are you all complaining about lol
They basically created algorithm how brain learns using mathematics
What a boring video. Just say there would be a Nobel prize for computer science
People just assume that the Nobel Prize is supposed to award contributions in the field. However, this is not the case. The Nobel Prize was created to award contributions to MANKIND using the field of research. Both winners used physics to contribute to mankind; it was about time to be awarded for that.
IMHO, whether AI provides a net benefit or a net detriment to mankind is yet to be determined.
One of the laureates has after making the discovery started warning people about the dangers of AI, and has resigned from Google's AI projects in protest for how they are not taking AI safety seriously.
One of the Economy Prize laureates this year has written critically about the impact of AI on the economy, claiming that it will really only benefit the already wealthy.
Absolute BS. That s how you destroy a brand. Two Nobels for glorified regressions.
This year's Noble Prize tells us the state of physics in general: nothing worth-while has been achieved in decades.
I've learned nothing from this video, waste of time
I'm sorry you couldn't understand the concept explained in this video.
@@llortaton2834 I'm also sorry
Pretty sure they have a money back guarantee if you are not completely satisfied.
@@samneggs1 don't think so, they look poor
I’ve learned nothing from this comment, can you provide a link to the helpful content you’re putting out in the world. These are busy professors taking time to have a conversation. Please 🙏 be considerate but it is okay if it’s not your favorite
This price is a scam
HE DON'T DESERVE IT
why?
@@almightyk11 because this random reddit user said so ig XD
why?
This is rage bait guys, don’t engage
Artificial intelligence is (most likely) the product of, and completely controlled by, an alien intelligence. In my opinion,
Alien life is taking advantage of human brains and using artificial intelligence to destroy humanity. This is my wonderful idea, and also the alien’s idea!
Khalid Masood
Punjab, Pakistan.
drink some milk