I was happy to see John Hopfield was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on neural networks. The award is based on this paper from 1982
Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities
One thing I find beautiful about the paper is how Hopfield drew on ideas about spin glasses (many competing interactions lead to many ground states and a complex energy landscape).
A central insight is that an efficient way to store the information describing multiple objects (different collective spin states in an Ising model) is in terms of the inter-spin interaction constants (J_ij's) in the Ising model. These are the "weights" that are trained/learned in computer neural nets.
It should be noted that Hopfield's motivation was not at all to contribute to computer science. It was to understand a problem in biological physics: what is the physical basis for associative memory?
I have mixed feelings about Geoffrey Hinton sharing the prize. On the one hand, in his initial work, Hinton used physics ideas (Boltzmann weights) to extend Hopfields ideas so they were useful in computer science. Basically, Hopfield considered a spin glass model at zero temperature and Hinton considered it at non-zero temperature. [Note, the temperature is not physical it is just a parameter in a Boltzmann probability distribution for different states of the neural network]. Hinton certainly deserves lots of prizes, but I am not sure a physics one is appropriate. His work on AI has certainly been helpful for physics research. But so have lots of other advances in computer software and hardware, and those pioneers did not receive a prize.
I feel a bit like I did with Jack Kilby getting a physics prize for his work on integrated circuits. I feel that sometimes the Nobel Committee just wants to remind the world how physics is so relevant to modern technology.
Ten years ago Hopfield wrote a nice scientific autobiography for Annual Reviews in Condensed Matter Physics,
Whatever Happened to Solid State Physics?
After the 2021 Physics Nobel to Parisi, I reflected on the legacy of spin glasses, including the work of Hopfield.
Aside: I once pondered whether a chemist will ever win the Physics prize, given that many condensed matter physicists have won the chemistry prize. Well now, we have had an electronic engineer and a computer scientist winning the Physics prize.
Another side: I think calling Hinton's network a Boltzmann machine is a scientific misnomer. I should add this to my list of people getting credit for things that did not do. Boltzmann never considered networks, spin glasses or computer algorithms. Boltzmann was a genius, but I don't think we should be attaching his name to everything that involves a Boltzmann distribution. To me, this is a bit like calling the Metropolis algorithm for Monte Carlo simulations the Boltzmann algorithm.
No comments:
Post a Comment