4 ms·
Here's a direct quote from the Alphafold paper: "These authors contributed equally: John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov,
by DevX101 2y ago
Here's a direct quote from the Alphafold paper:
"These authors contributed equally: John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, Alex Bridgland, Clemens Meyer, Simon A. A. Kohl, Andrew J. Ballard, Andrew Cowie, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Stanislav Nikolov, Rishub Jain, Demis Hassabis"
- seydor 2y agoThey didnt give the award to the paper
- onursurme 2y agoThe paper represents the work which lead to the prize. if A=B and A=C, then A=C
- SkiFire13 2y ago> if A=B and A=C, then A=C Technically true, but you might still want to double check your logic.
- fastball 2y agoNot all of the work. For example, it doesn't account for the fact that Demis Hassabis, as head of DeepMind, undoubtedly recruited many of the co-authors to participate in this effort, which is worth something when it comes to the final output.
- warkdarrior 2y agoWhat will the paper do with the prize money?
- Rochus 2y agoAt least they could have read it before awarding the price.
- dangsux 2y ago[dead]
- t_mann 2y agoHere's 8 densely printed pages of contributors to a discovery that lead to a Nobel prize: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7214#page=26 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7214#page=26 Guess how many of them were included in the prize. It's a shame that the Nobel committee shies away from awarding it to institutions, but the AlphaFold prize doesn't even make the top 10 in a list of most controversial omissions from a Nobel prize. It's a simple case of lab director gets the most credit.
- throwaway48476 2y agoPerhaps it's time the prize goes to the discovery itself instead of a person.
- BurningFrog 2y agoHow do you give $1M to a discovery?
- throwaway48476 2y ago$1M ain't what it used to be.
- ascorbic 2y agoIt's not a case of shying away from it: the rules of the prize don't allow it.
- myworkinisgood 2y agorules of the prize can be changed.
- afthonos 2y agoCan they? I mean, in the sense that you can yolo anything, sure, but the prizes were designed in a time when it was (more) reasonable to award them to individuals, and they are defined in a will. There may not be a mechanism for updating the standards.
- stenl 2y agoAnd further down: ” Contributions J.J. and D.H. led the research. J.J., R.E., A. Pritzel, M.F., O.R., R.B., A. Potapenko, S.A.A.K., B.R.-P., J.A., M.P., T. Berghammer and O.V. developed the neural network architecture and training. T.G., A.Ž., K.T., R.B., A.B., R.E., A.J.B., A.C., S.N., R.J., D.R., M.Z. and S.B. developed the data, analytics and inference systems. D.H., K.K., P.K., C.M. and E.C. managed the research. T.G. led the technical platform. P.K., A.W.S., K.K., O.V., D.S., S.P. and T. Back contributed technical advice and ideas. M.S. created the BFD genomics database and provided technical assistance on HHBlits. D.H., R.E., A.W.S. and K.K. conceived the AlphaFold project. J.J., R.E. and A.W.S. conceived the end-to-end approach. J.J., A. Pritzel, O.R., A. Potapenko, R.E., M.F., T.G., K.T., C.M. and D.H. wrote the paper.”
- onursurme 2y agoThese people aren't in the "These authors contributed equally" list.
- stephencanon 2y ago> J.J. and D.H. led the research Hey, I wonder who these mysterious "J.J." and "D.H." might be?
- DevX101 2y agoThe nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research. I don't know if this means the Nobel needs to change or we need a another prize that reflects the collaborative work of modern science.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago> The nature of scientific work has changed significantly since 1895, when the Nobel Prizes were established. 100 years ago, lots of scientific work really were driven forward largely by a singular person. That's rarely true today for groundbreaking research. The question is: is this a necessity for doing good science today, or rather an artifact of how important research is organized today (i.e. an artifact of the bureacratic and organizational structure that you have to "accept"/"tolerate" if you want to do want to have a career in science)?
- DevX101 2y agoSo I did a mini research project on Claude to answer your question. From 1900-1930, 87% of Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology/Medicine were awarded to individual contributions, 13% were awarded to collaborative contributions. This ratio has flipped in the past 30 years, from 1994-2023, where 17% prizes were individual, 83% collaborative. So I'd say yes, collaborative work is increasingly a requirement to do groundbreaking research today. The organizational structures and funding are a part of the reason as you mention. But it's also that modern scientific problems are more complex. I used to have a professor that used to say about biology "the easy problems have been solved". While I think that's dismissive to some of the ingenious experiments done in the past, there's some truth to it.
- afthonos 2y agoThis begs the question. If all science is now structured as big research teams, we'd expect the breakthroughs to come from such teams. That doesn’t necessarily imply that teams are needed.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]