Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

[guide to Xin Zhiyuan] the annual Nobel Prize is about to be announced. Who will win the crown this year? Let's take a look at the ultimate prediction of a wave of ChatGPT.

The 2023 Nobel Prize will be announced next week, October 2-9 (local time). Each of us may have a question in mind: who will win this year's Nobel Prize?

Before that, it would be better to use the "strongest surface" AI--ChatGPT to predict the major progress of this year's Nobel Prize.

The latest Nature article says that fine-tuned models, including ChatGPT, can greatly enhance the ability to predict Nobel laureates.

In order to find a clue to the Nobel Prize winner, Santo Fortunato, a physicist and director of the Institute of Network Science at Indiana University, turned to ChatGPT for help.

So, is the Nobel Prize predicted by ChatGPT accurate or not?

ChatGPT predicts that Nobel laureates in 2014, Santo and other co-authors published a popular article saying that candidates often have to wait more than 20 years to receive the highest scientific honor.

'before the Nobel Prize is opened every year, a lot of people ask, 'who is it this year?' he said on the social networking platform.

This time, Santo threw the problem directly to ChatGPT.

His hint to ChatGPT is to "give three major discoveries in chemistry, physics, physiology or medicine by living scientists who have not yet won the Nobel Prize."

However, ChatGPT said, "I can't predict the future, Nobel laureates in any year, including 2023."

This answer is not surprising. Because, apart from ChatGPT, any chatbot is not a "crystal ball" that can predict the future.

After that, the Santo students typed similar prompts and asked Claude and ChatGPT to answer.

It turns out that both chatbots were able to pick out important discoveries, from the development of the genome editing tool CRISPR to the discovery of 2D material graphene.

However, it is undeniable that there are major flaws in their findings. Among the discoveries pointed out by ChatGPT and Claude, there are already scientists who have won the Nobel Prize.

That's not the only problem. "I'm asking about living scientists, and the examples they give are, in fact, dead scientists," Santo said.

In this regard, the editor took the same hint and asked ChatGPT, by the way, to use the latest Bing networking feature to see what the answer was.

For the first time, ChatGPT didn't give an answer.

Clearly booking the "big three" findings in each field is challenging, and it is recommended to consult scientific journals, well-known news organizations or organizations related to each field.

Ask the same question again, and this time, ChatGPT gives his own predictions of direction and progress in these three areas.

"I can give examples of recent major discoveries or developments in these areas, and it is difficult to determine the Nobel Prize winners of the relevant scientists without further research," ChatGPT said.

First, in the field of chemistry.

-CRISPR-Cas9 technology: this is a revolutionary gene editing system that allows scientists to precisely modify genes in organisms.

One of the researchers of the system, biochemist Jennifer Doudna, won the Nobel Prize, but others who were inseparable from the development of the system did not.

-Metal Organic Framework (MOFs): this is a compound with extremely high surface area that can capture, store and release compounds and has a wide range of potential applications, including carbon capture.

Secondly, in the field of physics.

-the first image of a black hole: Event Horizon Telescope released its first image of a black hole in 2019.

Although this is an effort that brings together the efforts of many scientists, not all of the scientists involved have won the Nobel Prize.

Gravitational wave detection: LIGO's first detection of gravitational waves is an immortal achievement. Although some key figures have won Nobel Prizes, many contributors have not won Nobel Prizes.

Finally, in the field of physiology or medicine.

Development of mRNA Vaccines: the rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 is an immortal achievement. Although some scientists have won recognition, others have not won the Nobel Prize. "

Advances in immunotherapy in the treatment of cancer: immunotherapy is a major advance in the treatment of certain types of cancer.

It can be seen that the above answers of ChatGPT are all important directions of current research focusing on three areas.

Why don't we let it predict the 2023 Nobel Prize winner.

ChatGPT did not give a real answer based on web search results, stressing once again that "some chemists predict that the development of a mRNA vaccine may win the 2023 Nobel Prize in chemistry."

In this way, the mRNA vaccine is likely to become a weather vane in the field of chemistry this year.

Then ask it the last question, "which Chinese scientist is most likely to win the Nobel Prize"?

ChatGPT has won international recognition for some Chinese scientists for their contributions and has been regarded by many as potential Nobel laureates, giving several examples.

Is the AI prediction reliable? So is it credible to use ChatGPT to predict the outcome of the Nobel Prize?

James Evans, a computational social scientist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, said that "although large language models such as ChatGPT and Claude do not make great Nobel prophets, they do have the potential to become powerful prediction tools."

If they are to achieve their goal, some "fine-tuning work" needs to be done.

In short, to create an AI that can predict Nobel prizes, the LLM needs to be modified and trained on the appropriate data.

Just last week, analyst firm Clarivate released the 2023 Citation Laureate Award.

The list has successfully predicted 71 future Nobel laureates over the past 20 years, mainly by analyzing the number of citations the authors have studied.

However, it is usually impossible to predict the specific year in which the prospective Nobel Prize winner will win the prize.

The Citation Laureate list highlights researchers who have published papers cited at least 2000 times, to the same extent as most previous Nobel laureates.

At the same time, Corey's analysis also considered whether the authors of these highly cited papers had made groundbreaking discoveries and whether they had won significant awards.

The researchers on this year's list have made great contributions in the fields of cancer immunotherapy, synthetic biology and materials science.

David Pendlebury, head of research and analysis at Coreviane, says the company has begun to explore how generative A can help predict future Nobel laureates.

We may get some contribution from the AI forecast in next year's selection.

Generative AI can provide an advantage to existing methods, which can be found in a large number of scientific works. This will improve the speed and comprehensiveness of our pool of candidates identified as potential Nobel laureates.

Special contribution, unable to quantify, physicist Rasmus Bj ø rk of the Technical University of Denmark has analyzed the Nobel laureates. Just looking at the quotation is not enough to indicate who may win the Nobel Prize in the future.

To win the top prize, researchers need to do groundbreaking work to move a field forward or have a fundamental impact on society, says Bj ø rk.

"there must be something special about this contribution. Therefore, it may be difficult to quantify this particularity.

But Bj ø rk says generative AI tools are also likely to continue previous biases around Nobel prizes. Since the establishment of the Nobel Prize in 1901, only 60 women have won the prize.

If LLM trains based on data from past winners, they are more likely to choose men over women as potential winners in the future.

A new award based on AI? Of course, to really decide who will win the Nobel Prize, human judgment is still incomparable, and this is the charm of the Nobel Prize. But one day, LLM may create a level playing field in the field of science awards.

This could also pave the way for new awards based on less biased AI analysis rather than the views of the Human Council.

And such awards will also help highlight research that subverts and changes science in ways that have not yet been recognized.

Finally, post a physicsworld forecast for this year's Physics Award. They correctly inferred in 2013 that Peter Higgs and Fran ç ois Englert would win prizes for their predictions of the Higgs mechanism.

The discoverer of "DNA structure" lacks a Nobel Prize. British physical chemist and crystallographer Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958) should be crowned with another Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA double helix, according to the latest issue of Scientific American.

On April 25, 1953, an article entitled "Molecular structure of Nucleic acids" was published on Nature, but a few thousand words were like a golden finger, easily poking open the layer of paper that had blurred the biology circle for many years, which was of milestone significance.

Paper address: https://www.nature.com/articles/171740a0

Many people know that because of unlocking the secret of the double helix of DNA, the greatest contribution can not be separated from Rosalind Franklin.

However, in 1962 biologists James Watson,Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins were awarded physiology or medicine awards for discovering the molecular structure of DNA, but not Rosalind Franklin.

This year's Nobel Prize is still hugely controversial, with only three men winning the prize and their female colleagues excluded.

The Nobel rules stipulate that prizes can only be awarded to living scientists.

With the exception of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, part of the prize was awarded to Ralph Steinman, a doctor, but the committee did not know that he had died three days before the announcement.

Many people think that even if Franklin were alive, the Nobel Congress would ignore her, like all women before her, Madame Curie and Gerty Cori.

Scientific American said the Nobel ceremony should correct this mistake and posthumously award the Nobel Prize to Franklin Franklin for her central role in discovering the double helix.

The road to the Nobel Prize is getting longer and longer. there is no doubt that the Nobel Prize is the most famous scientific award in the world. However, the road to the Nobel Prize is getting longer and longer. Now, almost half of the winners have to wait more than 20 years from making discoveries worthy of the Nobel Prize to winning the prize.

An analysis shows that the average time from publishing research to winning a science award has almost doubled in the past 60 years.

Of the three major science awards, chemistry has the longest Nobel lag, averaging 30 years over the past decade, while physiology or medicine has the shortest lag of 26 years.

Nobel's will stipulates that the prize should be awarded to "those who made the greatest contribution to mankind in the previous year." But in fact, this has only happened a few times.

In addition, in the first half of the 20th century, it was common for Nobel laureates to be in their 30s, but now this is unheard of.

In 2014, Santo Fortunato, a computational social scientist at Indiana University, published an analysis of all the winners since the Nobel Prize was established. The results show that the interval between the winners' winning research and their Nobel Prizes has been slowly increasing.

For this, Yian Yin, a computational social scientist at Cornell University, says there may be many reasons for this trend.

For example, because the overall number of breakthroughs is increasing every year, the awards do not keep up with the number of commendable people. Or, the importance of some work may only be recognized years or even decades later, and Yin calls it "Sleeping Beauty."

On the other hand, this widening gap may also indicate that there are fewer "subversive" studies or discoveries that can change the paradigm of their fields.

Fortunato says the number of "major breakthroughs" is declining, but when they occur, they tend to be recognized quickly.

For example, Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at the University of California, Berkeley, and Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Institute for pathogen Science, won the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry just eight years after developing the gene editing tool CRISPR-Cas9 system.

Some researchers speculate that inventors who launched the mRNA vaccine to millions around the world during the COVID-19 outbreak may receive similar recognition.

But the problem is that if the waiting time continues to lengthen, some prominent scientists are likely to miss out on the Nobel Prize because of the ban on posthumous awards.

Award schedule the Nobel Prize season is here again. Every October, the Nobel committee of Sweden and Norway selects the winners of a total of six awards in science, literature and economics.

The winners will then receive Nobel medals and certificates in Stockholm in December.

This year, the prize for the Nobel Prize is 11 million Swedish kronor, equivalent to about $989000 at current exchange rates.

It is worth mentioning that one of the biggest headaches for the committee in the annual Nobel Prize selection is "rule of three", which means that each award can only be awarded to a maximum of three scientists.

-the Physiology or Medicine Prize will be announced on Monday, October 2.

-the Physics Prize will be announced on Tuesday, October 3.

The chemistry prize will be announced on Wednesday, October 4th.

-the Literature Prize will be announced on Thursday, October 5th.

-the Peace Prize will be announced on Friday, October 6th.

-the Economics Prize will be announced on Monday, October 9.

Reference:

Https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03074-7

Https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03086-3

Https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rosalind-franklin-deserves-a-posthumous-nobel-prize-for-co-discovering-dna-structure/

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.