4 ms·

I definitely think their work is deserving of awards, but I kinda agree with other commenters in that this says more about the Nobel committee than anything i.

by chubot 2y ago

I definitely think their work is deserving of awards, but I kinda agree with other commenters in that this says more about the Nobel committee than anything i.e. Hinton has already won a Turing Award in 2018, and there is no Nobel for computer science And this work was already recognized to have impact ~12 years ago, when he auctioned his company of 2 grad students to Google/Microsoft/Baidu/Facebook, for over $40M, ultimately going with Google [1] --- i.e. IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant to be giving this award in physics to machine learning research – it doesn’t feel like that would have happened without the news cycle At least IMO the scientific awards are more interesting when they're leading indicators, not trailing ones -- when they are given by peers, acknowledging impact that may happen in the future. Because it often takes decades to have impact, and it may occur after the researcher has passed away --- [1] https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Makers-Mavericks-Brought-Facebook/dp/1524742678 https://www.amazon.com/Genius-Makers-Mavericks-Brought-Faceb... - good book if you’re interested in how technology transfer happened in the last 10-15 years

whatshisface 2y ago
>IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant >scientific awards are more interesting when leading indicators Peter Higgs waited 50 years, the Nobel is not a "leading indicator." If it was, it would be given out on the basis of the "hype cycle," which would not be very helpful to anybody.
- chubot 2y ago
  Well, it's possible to wait 50 years, and still NOT have realized the full impact of your work in society Sometimes science/engineering turns out like that e.g. I think Claude Shannon is like that -- his impact continues to rise, and he's viewed as more important after he died He apparently never won a Turing Award or Nobel Prize, probably because there was and is no Nobel in computer science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon#Awards_and_honors_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon#Awards_and_hono... So I guess I mean "drawing attention to something that would have not otherwise had attention", and based on the consensus of people working in the field
- meepmorp 2y ago
  The Higgs boson was first detected in 2012 and he won the Nobel the following year. Saying he waited 50 years for the prize is a bit disingenuous.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    It's not disingenuous, the Higgs mechanism was theorized in the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_the_Higgs_boson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_the_Higgs_boson
  - martopix 2y ago
    Not the poster, but I don't understand the downvotes: this is exactly right. Higgs was awarded the Nobel after the mechanism he theorized was experimentally confirmed, and that is 100% the reason it took so long.
    - meepmorp 2y ago
      Right! Einstein didn't get the Nobel because the theory of relativity is awesome, he got it after Eddington observed gravitational lensing during an eclipse, confirming a key prediction. Brilliant theorizing can be both brilliant and wrong.
      - kragen 2y ago
        Einstein got the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum physics, not relativity.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by chubot 2y ago

whatshisface 2y ago

>IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant >scientific awards are more interesting when leading indicators Peter Higgs waited 50 years, the Nobel is not a "leading indicator." If it was, it would be given out on the basis of the "hype cycle," which would not be very helpful to anybody.

chubot 2y ago
Well, it's possible to wait 50 years, and still NOT have realized the full impact of your work in society Sometimes science/engineering turns out like that e.g. I think Claude Shannon is like that -- his impact continues to rise, and he's viewed as more important after he died He apparently never won a Turing Award or Nobel Prize, probably because there was and is no Nobel in computer science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon#Awards_and_honors_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon#Awards_and_hono... So I guess I mean "drawing attention to something that would have not otherwise had attention", and based on the consensus of people working in the field
meepmorp 2y ago
The Higgs boson was first detected in 2012 and he won the Nobel the following year. Saying he waited 50 years for the prize is a bit disingenuous.
- kibwen 2y ago
  It's not disingenuous, the Higgs mechanism was theorized in the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_the_Higgs_boson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_the_Higgs_boson
- martopix 2y ago
  Not the poster, but I don't understand the downvotes: this is exactly right. Higgs was awarded the Nobel after the mechanism he theorized was experimentally confirmed, and that is 100% the reason it took so long.
  - meepmorp 2y ago
    Right! Einstein didn't get the Nobel because the theory of relativity is awesome, he got it after Eddington observed gravitational lensing during an eclipse, confirming a key prediction. Brilliant theorizing can be both brilliant and wrong.
    - kragen 2y ago
      Einstein got the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum physics, not relativity.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]