3 ms·

Whatever the facts, the OP comes across as sour grapes. The author, Jürgen Schmidhuber, believes Hopfield and Hinton did not deserve their Nobel Prize in Physic

by cs702 1y ago

Whatever the facts, the OP comes across as sour grapes. The author, Jürgen Schmidhuber, believes Hopfield and Hinton did not deserve their Nobel Prize in Physics, and that Hinton, Bengio, and LeCun did not deserve their Turing Award. Evidently, many other scientists disagree, because both awards were granted in consultation with the scientific community. Schmidhuber's own work was, in fact, cited by the Nobel Prize committee as background information for the 2024 Nobel.[a] Only future generations of scientists, looking at the past more objectively, will be able to settle these disputes. [a] https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/11/advanced-physicsprize2024-3.pdf https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/11/advanced-physicsp...

icelancer 1y ago
Didn't click the article, came straight to the comments thinking "I bet it's Schmidhuber being salty." Some things never change.
- throwaway2562 1y ago
  Do yourself a big favour and read the article before commenting, perhaps? Hint: Schmidhuber has amassed solid evidence over years of digging.
matusp 1y ago
I think the unspoken claim here is that the North American scientific establishment takes credit from other sources and elevates certain personas instead of the true innovators who are overlooked. Arguing that the establishment doesn't agree with this idea is kinda pointless.
eigenspace 1y ago
For what it's worth, it's a very mainstream opinion in the physics community that Hinton did not at all deserve a nobel prize in physics for his work. But that's because his work, and wasnt impactful at all to the physics community
- Lerc 1y ago
  I think Hinton himself has made that observation. In a recent talk he made a quip that he had to change some slides because if you have a Nobel prize in physics you should at least get the units right.
  - jimsimmons 1y ago
    Honest person would have rejected it and protected the prize's honour
    - pretzellogician 1y ago
      That's a joke, right? Turning down community recognition and a million dollars to make an unclear statement about which category the prize was awarded in?
      - Kranar 1y ago
        The argument had to do with honesty while your justification is that money and popularity are worth more than being honest. Now perhaps Hinton does deserve the award, but certainly it should not be because of the reasons you cite: money and popularity.
        pretzellogician 1y ago
        I said nothing of the sort. Being "honest" does not mean you have to give a middle finger to a panel that nominated you. The point of that Nobel was clearly recognition for their achievement; the category choice was mainly irrelevant.
        Kranar 1y ago
        No being honest does not mean that and had you said that I'd have no basis upon which to object to your comment. You refuted an argument about being honest about accepting an award on the basis that the award pays a lot of money and grants one a great deal of popularity. If your argument didn't involve money and popularity, then why did you choose those two specific criteria as the justification for accepting this award? I want to be clear, I am not claiming that Dr. Hinton accepted the award in a dishonest manner or that he did it for money, I am simply refuting your position that money is a valid reason to disregard honesty for accepting a prestigious award.
caycep 1y ago
granted, this goes way back before the Nobel and isn't limited to the trio above. JS is known for frequently and publicly challenging anyone who presents anything on neural networks. He was pestering Ian Goodfellow about who did GANs first in a NEURIPS tutorial in 2016, amongst others
cubefox 1y ago
> Evidently, many other scientists disagree, because both awards were granted in consultation with the scientific community. That's not a good argument. They do in fact sometimes give awards with which the "scientific community" disagrees. Schmidhuber actually gave object level arguments on why the official justification for the Turing award contained substantial errors.

by cs702 1y ago

icelancer 1y ago

Didn't click the article, came straight to the comments thinking "I bet it's Schmidhuber being salty." Some things never change.

throwaway2562 1y ago
Do yourself a big favour and read the article before commenting, perhaps? Hint: Schmidhuber has amassed solid evidence over years of digging.

matusp 1y ago

I think the unspoken claim here is that the North American scientific establishment takes credit from other sources and elevates certain personas instead of the true innovators who are overlooked. Arguing that the establishment doesn't agree with this idea is kinda pointless.

eigenspace 1y ago

For what it's worth, it's a very mainstream opinion in the physics community that Hinton did not at all deserve a nobel prize in physics for his work. But that's because his work, and wasnt impactful at all to the physics community

Lerc 1y ago
I think Hinton himself has made that observation. In a recent talk he made a quip that he had to change some slides because if you have a Nobel prize in physics you should at least get the units right.
- jimsimmons 1y ago
  Honest person would have rejected it and protected the prize's honour
  - pretzellogician 1y ago
    That's a joke, right? Turning down community recognition and a million dollars to make an unclear statement about which category the prize was awarded in?
    - Kranar 1y ago
      The argument had to do with honesty while your justification is that money and popularity are worth more than being honest. Now perhaps Hinton does deserve the award, but certainly it should not be because of the reasons you cite: money and popularity.
      - pretzellogician 1y ago
        I said nothing of the sort. Being "honest" does not mean you have to give a middle finger to a panel that nominated you. The point of that Nobel was clearly recognition for their achievement; the category choice was mainly irrelevant.
        Kranar 1y ago
        No being honest does not mean that and had you said that I'd have no basis upon which to object to your comment. You refuted an argument about being honest about accepting an award on the basis that the award pays a lot of money and grants one a great deal of popularity. If your argument didn't involve money and popularity, then why did you choose those two specific criteria as the justification for accepting this award? I want to be clear, I am not claiming that Dr. Hinton accepted the award in a dishonest manner or that he did it for money, I am simply refuting your position that money is a valid reason to disregard honesty for accepting a prestigious award.

caycep 1y ago

granted, this goes way back before the Nobel and isn't limited to the trio above. JS is known for frequently and publicly challenging anyone who presents anything on neural networks. He was pestering Ian Goodfellow about who did GANs first in a NEURIPS tutorial in 2016, amongst others

cubefox 1y ago

> Evidently, many other scientists disagree, because both awards were granted in consultation with the scientific community. That's not a good argument. They do in fact sometimes give awards with which the "scientific community" disagrees. Schmidhuber actually gave object level arguments on why the official justification for the Turing award contained substantial errors.