Nobel Prize in Physics (& Computer Science?) - Computerphile
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks”. This video features Juan Garrahan, Phil Moriarty and Mike Pound... More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓
Nobel Prize press release - www.nobelprize...
Phil Moriarty blog (and vintage rant) on the prize - muircheartblog...
More Physics Nobel Prize videos - • Nobel Prize Videos - S...
Chemistry Nobel Prize videos - • Nobel Prize - Periodic...
The 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (also AI related) - • Protein Folding and AI...
Sixty Symbols (physics channel) - / sixtysymbols
How AI Image Generators Work - • How AI Image Generator...
Juan Garrahan - www.nottingham...
Phil Moriarty - muircheartblog...
Mike Pound - www.nottingham...
Computerphile is supported by Jane Street. Learn more about them (and exciting career opportunities) at: jane-st.co/com...
This video was filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computerphile is a sister project to Brady Haran's Numberphile. More at www.bradyharan...
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
RUclips should've implemented shared video long long time ago
Why?
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.
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.
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.
class CompScience extends Physics { }
it is actually Physics Script imports Computer Science Module
Even Nobel Winning Physicist jobs aren't safe from AI.
I’m sorry, but I still think computer science is mathematics 😅 the breakthrough was not in physics nor anything physical
11:30 based on the current geometry you should create your "Boltzmann machine" pattern based on a more complex geometry such as that of a A tesseract is a four-dimensional geometric shape, essentially a "cube in the fourth dimension," meaning it has eight cube-like faces that meet at right angles, analogous to how a regular cube in 3D space has six square faces meeting at right angles; it's considered a hypercube, the 4-dimensional equivalent of a square (2D) and a cube (3D).
Key points about a tesseract:
Dimensions:
It exists in four dimensions, meaning it has length, width, height, and a fourth spatial dimension that we can't directly visualize in our 3D world.
Faces:
Each "face" of a tesseract is a regular cube, with eight cubes making up the whole tesseract.
Visualization:
While we can't fully perceive a tesseract in our 3D space, visualizations often show a cube with smaller cubes seemingly "connected" to it at different angles, representing how the additional dimension would interact with the 3D space.
Mathematical term:
"Tesseract" comes from the Greek words "tessares" (four) and "aktis" (ray), and is sometimes also called a "4-cube".
8:54 Coffee, a Reversi board, and a pair of dice --- tools of the Physicist
I love Phil's passion! I wish I had Physics Professors like that.
I am just glad us statistical & computational physicist get more recognition
Leslie Lamport always refers to physics when he talks about his papers and algorithms.
We are waiting for you to play on any Othello tournament Prof. Moriarty ❤ it would be lovely!
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.
You should add & chemistry
Chemophile
Exactly. Also start the "physicsphile" channel and add it to the mix.
You get the Nobel Prize for Interdisciplinary Research
Oh boy! A computerphile and a sixty symbols video to watch! oh wait...
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.
The function of Geofferys Back propagation sounds like the Computer equivalent of Quantum Backward Time that takes place in the Microtubules of the neurons in the human brain (spoken about by Stuart Hameroff)
I always thought there should be more talk and colaboration between the sciences.
7:45 Magnets? But How Do They Work?!
(Place Wise Ass Meme Here Lulz)
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.
And yet, the ones that take the credit are launching companies like "Open"AI. That has to stop.
8:04 dont you patronize me about the super position of our world and how observation can collapse the wave function to manifest it. I will tell you what a QBIT is and how my quantum computational skills result in the undeniable fact that MY SCHWARTZ is bigger than YOUR SCHWART lol
Awwww, I thought there would be two different videos...
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...
It looks to me this should have been a mathematics prize and all would have been well.
9:00 I LOVE THIS MANS PASSION! FK YES> IM HYPED ABOUT PHYSICS THIS MANS A PHYSICS HYPE MAN I FKN LOVE IT IM FIRED THE FK UP~!
Ironically this is the version I saw first, even though I study physics XD
it's points on a cone.
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 ....
Mathematicians have entered the chat… lmao
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.
"memories are stored in a landscape"
hmmm. im immature
This price is a scam
Nobel Prize for spelling
phil 😂
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
HE DON'T DESERVE IT
why?
@@almightyk11 because this random reddit user said so ig XD
why?
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.