The Nobel committee usually prefers to wait and evaluate longer-term impact, so I'd be quite surprised. CRISPR was obviously revolutionary in 2013 (imo, more than alphafold), and won the Nobel in 2020.
> more than half a million researchers have used the machine-learning system, generating thousands of papers
Funny things is how the general scientific community (including nature) defines 'impact'. I somehow still strangley trust the Nobel committee to take a different approach here. Was curious and found this interesting collection of references: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Enacting-Excellency-Awa... .
AlphaFold doesn't solve folding. It makes metaheuristic guesses without writing a bunch of quantum chemistry, statistical physics, thermodyanamics, and topology maths / algorithms.
I don't mean to downplay AlphaFold, but we haven't solved protein folding yet. This press is really getting ahead of itself.
Are you a trained scientist, especially in the biochem/medsc field? What makes you more certified to say this isn't a revolutionary tool?
I personally know several people that do research that have unlocked new possibilities through this tool. My wife is a neuroscientist and she's used this tool a few times for reasons that are above my head (even with a Msc in Microbiology). This type of work used to take a PhD student 4 years or more to do a single relatively simple protein. Getting answers within a few seconds is revolutionary.
This reminds me of the criticisms of Copilot (GPT-3 application to generate computer code).
Many engineers will say it doesn't code. It just regurgitates and remixes the data it was trained on. It just makes "meta-heuristic guesses."
But anyone taking an honest and objective view of it can see that Copilot does add value. It's no substitute for a real, human, engineer, but it clearly adds value.
I don't think AlphaFold would get to this level of funding, resource commitment, etc. if it was adding 0 value.
Being a domain expert, I'm curious what value, if any, you think a large transformer model could add to the domain of protein folding. Is it really zero value, in your view?
The computer doesn't solve problems on its own, but it is objectively a breakthrough technology. It's pretty clear that AlphaFold is a phenomenal innovation.
GitHub ripping off everyone’s code to build copilot has caused a small (not as big as it should have been imho) exodus of open source projects to Gitlab and others.
I still don’t see how it’s a good idea to import unknown code with unknown licenses into your project, but apparently if copilot does it it’s okay.
> The AI effect occurs when onlookers discount the behavior of an artificial intelligence program by arguing that it is not real intelligence.
> Author Pamela McCorduck writes: "It's part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, 'that's not thinking'." Researcher Rodney Brooks complains: "Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a computation.'"
Solving physics isn't a soft thing like making pretty art.
I'm firmly in the "AI/ML will eat the world" camp, but the praises being foisted upon AlphaFold are borderline damaging to the real field and its practice.
You can't throw AlphaFold at pharmaceutical problems and call it a day. This press feels like a "mission accomplished" victory lap when it's very clear we're only just getting started.
I have a Msc in microbio, not biochem, but my understanding is that proteins don't have a constant shape. They vibrate, interact with other molecules, etc.
You won't have a perfect answer unless you want to predict its shape in a vacuum, which wouldn't be very useful either way. Having it "close enough" is already extremely useful. There are definitely edge cases where it gets it wrong, but there are always edge cases in ML. More data = better results with the same architecture.
Tons of things that won Nobel prizes weren't 100% accurate, it's not a prize for solving science, rather a prize for advancing science.
My wife is a neurobiologist and the impact of this advance is groundbreaking for her work.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which selects the recipients of the peace prize doesn't have anything to do with the physics and chemistry prizes which are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Thanks for supplying the extra detail as a counterpoint to my flippancy. I was aware that the Nobel Prize for Economics was "not a real Nobel Prize" but didn't know the Peace Prize was also quite separate from the science based awards.
It does make sense though, seeing as the scientific awards are generally awarded based on actual breakthroughs, whereas the political ones are, let's say, fuzzier.
> didn't know the Peace Prize was also quite separate from the science based awards.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The committees for Physics and Chemistry (and Economics) are colocated at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Medicine is elsewhere, as is Literature. Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Literature work together for final approval. Peace is completely on its own.
