As a physics researcher in the foundations of physics, I can unequivocally say AI is not physics! But for confimation, lets ask Gemini AI what it has to say: Question: Is AI physics? Gemini: AI is not physics, but it can be a powerful tool for physicists. While AI is a branch of computer science, it can be used to assist in various scientific fields, including physics. Here's how AI can be applied to physics: Data Analysis: AI can analyze large datasets to identify patterns and trends that might be difficult for humans to spot. Simulation: AI can be used to create complex simulations of physical systems, helping researchers to understand and predict their behavior. Problem Solving: AI can be employed to solve complex physics problems, such as optimizing experimental designs or modeling intricate physical phenomena. Discovery: AI can assist in the discovery of new physical phenomena by analyzing data and identifying anomalies that might indicate something new.
Its the Simulation and Discovery aspects that worry me. I have a specific issue with currant Cosmology, although we know that gravity slows time; we have no applicable mathematics so in their modals they do not Simulate a gravitational -Time relationship, thus their Discovery's' are all based on the false premise that there is space and there is time rather than there is Spacetime. This 'Lack of Maths' is currently frustrating their efforts to calibrate Moon time to Earth time so they ignore time dilation specifically and by doing so the cosmological implications for the Universe and taking Einstein forward not avoiding one of his unfinished concepts. His "Complete theory of relativity" had he finished it would have included "Relative Time".
Nope. It was a computer science / maths at best. As a nanotechnology PhD who interfaced with proto AI back in the 90s on an “artificial nose” with 64 nano sensors for gas sensing purposes , I understand what you’re talking about but calling this physics is questionable at best. The fact that so many people feel the need to justify it is evidence in and of itself. lol.
well I have studied astrophysics and AI and neural networks for 4 decades too, and I do not think for a moment AI is physics, not going to have the wool pulled over my eyes on this
Everything is physics if you dig deep enough, you can explain almost anything using physics if you try. But I'm of the no, LLMs are not physics for the purpose of the Nobel prize categorys. By your argument, everything science based should fall under the physics category. If that's the case then what's the point of having other categories?
"Even at home, everything is physics" I love that quote but seriously I still think it's a different branch and instead of creating a new price they just get them into the category. BTW is that song at the end made by Enya it really sounds like OG
I've seen several videos that explain how physics inspired this AI work, but I have yet to get an explanation of what we learned about physics from this research. Applications of the math used in physics in another field does not sound like physics research to me.
I knew it! The 2024 Nobel prize in physics should have went to… drumroll please… Dr Maggie Lieu!!! Yaaaaaaa! This video explaining AI machine learning could have been your Nobel acceptance speech! 🥳. Now for the Nobel gold medal and then the party…. Ah… they put the party on hold since COVID… but bring back the partying! Don’t forget to swing by Stockholm to pick up your prize 🎉. Great video explaining AI machine learning. 😊
I'm in the camp that everything is physics, but that shouldn't stop there being other sciences not named physics. You make a decent argument here but I feel like you had to go too deep for it to be 100% convincing.
Biology is just Physics, which is just Mathematics, which is just Computing Science. AI is based on biology, its just a poor copy we tried to make of biology.
Your argument is unconvincing. The AI research may have been inspired by principles in physics, but that's a pretty tenuous link for the Nobel Prize. It's more like applied physics, but we gain no insight into the science of physics (theory, experimentation, discovery). Physics can be applied to many, many things throughout the world. By your argument, the Nobel Physics Prize should be totally open-ended with no restrictions.
You're right, it is applied physics, the nobel prize is for ground breaking contributions in physics. AI is ground breaking and those models wouldnt exist without the physics equations...
@@SpaceMog A TV is applied physics. A microphone is applied physics. Computers are applied physics. AI is inspired by physics. AI in itself is not a contribution to physics (by defn the study of matter), but much like the hardware AI runs on, can be used to further research in physics. Not worthy of the physics prize IMHO (I'm not trying to take away from the work of Hopfield and Hinton here)
Former coder here- Can confirm that many of the algorithms for physics simulations are shockingly similar, if not the same, as algorithms for neural nets.
So anyone who successfully applies physics to anything, say some structural mechanics for making an office stapler, is potentially qualified for a nobel prize in physics then... No, physics is a set of principles describing the world, which then can be applied to build tools with, like AI. But that doesn't make AI physics anymore than an office stapler is physics.
@@Virtueman1 is the stapler changing the world? Loads of prizes in the past have not been inventing new physics... ghez and genzel looked through a telescope and saw a supermassive hole. They didnt come up with the theory. Barish on the grav waves win, he just secured funding ligo... einstein was the one to predict gravwaves and he didnt win...
😂 its biophysics - the mri machine was developed in the Physics department of my University - Nottingham :-P this module is also taught by physics NOT biology 🙈🙈🙈
Depends programa ai is not phisics and analog neuroling is the resistance its conductivetys and copasetys and this is olso stil not onderstood bi phisics❤ The onley phisics there is are the resistors translating binary code to pretend to be ai and yet ist is stil a digital calculating machine in stede of sentience
It can stil not feel ai is overrated It is beautiful when we have somting new to share with ai for it to surge oll in the same feilds of practice students theathers and professors to releay it to thame in to more dinamics. As soon as we let it think for us based on our own misperspections our greadiness it ads to the down falls of human cind and biosphericle behavieures of live
@@SpaceMog i didn't mean to imply it didn't make sense. (But, on reading, i suppose it does imply that) I'd just like to hear the other arguments (someone who would think this doesn't make sense). I presume it all comes down to flexible word definitions one way or the other.
Sorry honey. This should have, at best, been given in mathematics not physics. If we let this continue, the only research that will get Nobel prizes will be AI.
@@SpaceMog I shouldn't have called you honey, the commenter below is probably right 🙏 first, I don't think this deserves a math Nobel prize either. Math is a tool. It was used to solve a problem in the realm of code, more specifically logic. Their solution to the logic problem was a physical solution. So, they had to borrow some theories from physics to find the best solution. I say physical because they are just redirecting flows of energy, like star vs ring networks. Just changing the physical way the energy flows. Using a star over a ring network is choosing the proper physical solution to a logic problem which opens better logic and more options. I don't think the creator of star networks, or any network topology, deserves a Nobel prize for shifting around energy, especially not in physics. Physics prizes should go to solutions that solve physical problems, not logical or mathematical ones. 🤷♂️ I really do like you videos. ❤️
I don't think people who say "the map is not the territory" (Ed. as an "argument" in cases like and similar to this, where it is used to hand-wave away whatever it is they/you disagree with w/o saying anything of substance) really understand the meaning of either.
@@SpaceMog And I would have had no probability of understanding those fundamental parts and the sequence without your video. Thank you for the clarity and brightening. Big fan here.
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZDiGooFs54/mqdefault.jpg)
As a physics researcher in the foundations of physics, I can unequivocally say AI is not physics! But for confimation, lets ask Gemini AI what it has to say:
Question: Is AI physics?
Gemini: AI is not physics, but it can be a powerful tool for physicists.
While AI is a branch of computer science, it can be used to assist in various scientific fields, including physics. Here's how AI can be applied to physics:
Data Analysis: AI can analyze large datasets to identify patterns and trends that might be difficult for humans to spot.
Simulation: AI can be used to create complex simulations of physical systems, helping researchers to understand and predict their behavior.
Problem Solving: AI can be employed to solve complex physics problems, such as optimizing experimental designs or modeling intricate physical phenomena.
Discovery: AI can assist in the discovery of new physical phenomena by analyzing data and identifying anomalies that might indicate something new.
typical
Its the Simulation and Discovery aspects that worry me.
I have a specific issue with currant Cosmology, although we know that gravity slows time; we have no applicable mathematics so in their modals they do not Simulate a gravitational -Time relationship, thus their Discovery's' are all based on the false premise that there is space and there is time rather than there is Spacetime.
This 'Lack of Maths' is currently frustrating their efforts to calibrate Moon time to Earth time so they ignore time dilation specifically and by doing so the cosmological implications for the Universe and taking Einstein forward not avoiding one of his unfinished concepts. His "Complete theory of relativity" had he finished it would have included "Relative Time".
In the red corner - Drrrrr Maggie Lieuuuuuuu!! in the Blue Cornerrrrr - Saaaaabineeee Hossenfelderrrrrrr 🤪💥🥊
😂🙈
Fight! ⚡ 💥
as always a really informative and inspirational upload! such an interesting field of physics!
Thanks for that!
thank you for another video explaining a complex theory, simply!
Glad you liked it!
Oh dear.
Update: as a Physicist who spent a career in IT, and did research in AI, I say: Oh dear.
AI and Physics are just computing, its all mathematics. (I am a platonist)
@@monad_tcp - computing is a combination of half-adders and the Cannon Fodder theme song.
A really important argument to have out there, especially from a physicist so familiar with the realm. Thank youuuuu
Thank you!
Nope. It was a computer science / maths at best. As a nanotechnology PhD who interfaced with proto AI back in the 90s on an “artificial nose” with 64 nano sensors for gas sensing purposes , I understand what you’re talking about but calling this physics is questionable at best.
The fact that so many people feel the need to justify it is evidence in and of itself.
lol.
Thank you for the video. Subscribed.🤖
Welcome!
thank you for a digestible explanation 👍☺
You are welcome!
Thanks Mog
Thank you!
My pleasure :)
well I have studied astrophysics and AI and neural networks for 4 decades too, and I do not think for a moment AI is physics, not going to have the wool pulled over my eyes on this
“I am not crazy; my reality is just different from yours.”
😂
Everything is physics if you dig deep enough, you can explain almost anything using physics if you try.
But I'm of the no, LLMs are not physics for the purpose of the Nobel prize categorys.
By your argument, everything science based should fall under the physics category.
If that's the case then what's the point of having other categories?
"Even at home, everything is physics" I love that quote but seriously I still think it's a different branch and instead of creating a new price they just get them into the category.
BTW is that song at the end made by Enya it really sounds like OG
Oh Dr. Mags 🤯 you lost me 🤣 I dig it. Thank you for that 🙌🏻
🫠🫠🫠
Beautiful 😊
Thank you so much 😀
I've seen several videos that explain how physics inspired this AI work, but I have yet to get an explanation of what we learned about physics from this research. Applications of the math used in physics in another field does not sound like physics research to me.
Its nobel physics prize isn't given for physics research... It's just contributions to a world changing thing relating physics
I knew it! The 2024 Nobel prize in physics should have went to… drumroll please… Dr Maggie Lieu!!! Yaaaaaaa! This video explaining AI machine learning could have been your Nobel acceptance speech! 🥳. Now for the Nobel gold medal and then the party…. Ah… they put the party on hold since COVID… but bring back the partying! Don’t forget to swing by Stockholm to pick up your prize 🎉. Great video explaining AI machine learning. 😊
I wish! thank you so much :-)
Now I can say that without being ostracized. I said it once and people laughed at me.
Baddie🔥🔥
thank you
... and now I need to have a little lay down.
At times I look forward to Skynet.
same :-)
I'm in the camp that everything is physics, but that shouldn't stop there being other sciences not named physics. You make a decent argument here but I feel like you had to go too deep for it to be 100% convincing.
Biology is just Physics, which is just Mathematics, which is just Computing Science.
AI is based on biology, its just a poor copy we tried to make of biology.
Your argument is unconvincing. The AI research may have been inspired by principles in physics, but that's a pretty tenuous link for the Nobel Prize. It's more like applied physics, but we gain no insight into the science of physics (theory, experimentation, discovery).
Physics can be applied to many, many things throughout the world. By your argument, the Nobel Physics Prize should be totally open-ended with no restrictions.
You're right, it is applied physics, the nobel prize is for ground breaking contributions in physics. AI is ground breaking and those models wouldnt exist without the physics equations...
@@SpaceMog How has AI contributed to physics???
@@SpaceMog A TV is applied physics. A microphone is applied physics. Computers are applied physics. AI is inspired by physics.
AI in itself is not a contribution to physics (by defn the study of matter), but much like the hardware AI runs on, can be used to further research in physics. Not worthy of the physics prize IMHO (I'm not trying to take away from the work of Hopfield and Hinton here)
If we could simulate a human brain tomorrow? it'd be programmers cutting it up. Not Doctors caring for it. Remember that.
Former coder here-
Can confirm that many of the algorithms for physics simulations are shockingly similar, if not the same, as algorithms for neural nets.
So anyone who successfully applies physics to anything, say some structural mechanics for making an office stapler, is potentially qualified for a nobel prize in physics then...
No, physics is a set of principles describing the world, which then can be applied to build tools with, like AI.
But that doesn't make AI physics anymore than an office stapler is physics.
@@Virtueman1 is the stapler changing the world?
Loads of prizes in the past have not been inventing new physics... ghez and genzel looked through a telescope and saw a supermassive hole. They didnt come up with the theory.
Barish on the grav waves win, he just secured funding ligo... einstein was the one to predict gravwaves and he didnt win...
Commenting to feed the algorithm 🙃
I think AI should have their own prize and leave physics to classical physics
3:34 - Or biology applied to physics so its biology? :D
😂 its biophysics - the mri machine was developed in the Physics department of my University - Nottingham :-P this module is also taught by physics NOT biology 🙈🙈🙈
Depends programa ai is not phisics and analog neuroling is the resistance its conductivetys and copasetys and this is olso stil not onderstood bi phisics❤
The onley phisics there is are the resistors translating binary code to pretend to be ai and yet ist is stil a digital calculating machine in stede of sentience
It can stil not feel ai is overrated
It is beautiful when we have somting new to share with ai for it to surge oll in the same feilds of practice students theathers and professors to releay it to thame in to more dinamics.
As soon as we let it think for us based on our own misperspections our greadiness it ads to the down falls of human cind and biosphericle behavieures of live
now it'd be interesting to hear from someone who thinks this doesn't make sense.
What didnt make sense to you ?
@@SpaceMog i didn't mean to imply it didn't make sense. (But, on reading, i suppose it does imply that) I'd just like to hear the other arguments (someone who would think this doesn't make sense). I presume it all comes down to flexible word definitions one way or the other.
@@mijmijrm ahh ok. I think sabine hossenfender has a video with counter arguments :)
Sorry honey. This should have, at best, been given in mathematics not physics. If we let this continue, the only research that will get Nobel prizes will be AI.
Why would it be maths? those are physics theories....
That “honey” is condescending. She’s a working phd physicist, show her the respect she’s due.
@@SpaceMog I shouldn't have called you honey, the commenter below is probably right 🙏 first, I don't think this deserves a math Nobel prize either. Math is a tool. It was used to solve a problem in the realm of code, more specifically logic. Their solution to the logic problem was a physical solution. So, they had to borrow some theories from physics to find the best solution. I say physical because they are just redirecting flows of energy, like star vs ring networks. Just changing the physical way the energy flows. Using a star over a ring network is choosing the proper physical solution to a logic problem which opens better logic and more options. I don't think the creator of star networks, or any network topology, deserves a Nobel prize for shifting around energy, especially not in physics. Physics prizes should go to solutions that solve physical problems, not logical or mathematical ones. 🤷♂️ I really do like you videos. ❤️
@@rob.parsnips you're right. I didn't want to come off like a jerk, just how I talk...
What do you think about neural microtubules? Are they little quantum computers?
Nobel is clearly a joke now
The moment you disagree with something you think it's a joke? Or have you been thinking this for a while?
Not really. It’s just like half of the world right now, chasing AI tail.
@@graxxor AI haze zero to do with physics
At the end of the day, the map is not the territory. AI is not Physics. imo.
I don't think people who say "the map is not the territory" (Ed. as an "argument" in cases like and similar to this, where it is used to hand-wave away whatever it is they/you disagree with w/o saying anything of substance) really understand the meaning of either.
its not physics, but it wouldnt be there without those fundamental contributions...
@@SpaceMog And I would have had no probability of understanding those fundamental parts and the sequence without your video. Thank you for the clarity and brightening. Big fan here.
@@fredhancock7836 thanks for watching!
what flavor of cope is this
Commenting to feed the algorithm 🙃
Thanks!