Demis Hassabis and Geoffrey Hinton Awarded Nobel Prizes
post by Anna Gajdova (anna-gajdova) · 2024-10-09T12:56:24.856Z · LW · GW · 8 commentsContents
8 comments
Geoffrey Hinton received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his role in creating the modern field of deep learning. This will strengthen his reputation as the "Godfather of AI" which was already used to amplify his public statements about AI risk [LW · GW].[1]
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2024 was awarded to John J. Hopfield and Geoffrey E. Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.”
Demis Hassabis, Deepmind's co-founder and CEO, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his role in creating AlphaFold.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2024 was divided, one half awarded to David Baker "for computational protein design", the other half jointly to Demis Hassabis and John M. Jumper "for protein structure prediction".
AlphaFold's extraordinary contributions to the field of computational biology are relatively undisputed, but the relevance of neural networks to physics has led to some discussions. Nevertheless, it can be said that AI-related research scored two Nobel Prizes, which corresponds to the credit and attention AI currently receives in the public eye.
Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded for the discovery of miRNA. This year's Nobel Prizes in Literature and Peace are yet to be awarded.[2]
- ^
The media attention also amplifies many other remarks too (e.g. takes on Trump and AI or UBI).
I also remember being disappointed by the lack of depth behind his public claims about AI, though it might have been caused by the reporting filter.
I haven't spent much time on this but it's not clear to me what his concrete recommendations are or which policy proposals would he would support.
- ^
Will ChatGPT complete the trio? Sam Altman would be a very funny Literature laureate : )
8 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by gjm · 2024-10-09T22:46:10.163Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Correction: the 2024 Nobel Prize in Medicine was for the discovery of microRNA, not mRNA which is also important but a different thing.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2024-10-10T14:26:04.572Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know how the article was looking at the beginning, but for anyone not familiar with the terms: miRNA is another term for mircroRNA.
Replies from: gjmcomment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-11T20:17:07.639Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't pay attention to what gets people the Nobel Prize in physics, but this seems obviously illegitimate. AI and physics are pretty unrelated, and they aren't getting it for an AI that has done anything to solve physics. I'm pretty sure they didn't get it for merit, but because AI is hyped. The AI chemistry one makes some sense, as it is actually making attempts to solve a chemistry issue, but I doubt its importance since they also felt the need to award AI in a way that makes no sense with the other award.
Replies from: ChristianKl, shankar-sivarajan↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2024-10-13T16:39:11.781Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Nobel Committee for Physics that decides who gives out the physics price is not made up of the same people as the chemistry price.
While it's possible that the people from the Nobel Committee for Chemistry talked with the Nobel Committee for Physics, modelling them as an amorphous "they" seems to me like it makes little sense.
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-13T17:15:30.230Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think that the fact that they are technically separate people just makes it more likely for this to come into play. If it was all the same people, they could simply choose the best contribution of AI and be done with it, but they have the same setup, pressures, and general job, but have not themselves honored AI yet... and each wants to make their own mark.
I do think this is much more likely the reason that the physics one was chosen than chemistry, but it does show that the pressures that exist are to honor AI even when it doesn't make sense.
I do think it often makes sense to model organizations as if they individuals that respond to their collective incentives regardless of what the people actually doing it may be thinking. If the parts are separate enough, it may make more sense to model each part as an individual. Any pathology an individual can have, a group can too, even if that group has exactly zero people with that actual pathology involved.
↑ comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-10-13T17:44:11.876Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is a lot like the time they awarded it for the invention of the blue LED, so I don't think "hype" is a good explanation. I agree it's bullshit though: it's not a physics achievement in any meaningful way.
The Chemistry one for AlphaFold seems reasonable to me.
Replies from: deepthoughtlife↑ comment by deepthoughtlife · 2024-10-14T15:04:21.023Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Huh, they really gave a Nobel in Physics specifically for the blue LED? It would have made sense for LED's at all, but specifically for blue? That really is ridiculous.
I should be clearer that AlphaFold seems like something that could be a chemistry breakthrough sufficient for a prize, I'd even heard about how difficult the problem was before in other contexts, and it was hailed as a breakthrough at the time in what seemed like a genuine way, but I can't evaluate its importance to the field as an outsider, and the terrible physics prize leads me to suspect their evaluations of the Chemistry prize might be flawed due to whatever pressures led to the selection of the Physics prize.