3 ms·
I think this article misses the point of the controversy. The controversy isn't that the work isn't "award winning". It's that it was awarded for physics. Nu
by drpossum 2y ago
I think this article misses the point of the controversy. The controversy isn't that the work isn't "award winning". It's that it was awarded for physics.
Number of times that article mentions physics: once in the caption as "Nobel Prize in Physics"
- kleiba 2y agoThat's exactly it, at least that's I think what most of the public raising of eyebrows has been about. But in the beginning of the article, the author links to Schmidhuber, and his criticism is an orthogonal one. Namely that Hopfield and Hilton have received undue credit. I wrote a longer comment to detail what I think the problem with the article related to that notion is.