An executive from a large technology firm on Thursday won a Nobel prize. The top prize for chemistry went to the head of Alphabet Inc’s artificial intelligence (AI) efforts, Demis Hassabis, along with two other key scientists, for a years-long project that used AI to predict the structure of proteins. The day before, Geoffrey Hinton, a former executive at Google who has been called a godfather of AI, won the Nobel Prize in Physics along with physicist John Hopfield, for work on machine learning.
It seems the Nobel Foundation is eager to mark AI advancements — and the notion that key scientific problems can be solved computationally — as worthy of its coveted prizes. That would be a reputational boon for firms like Google and executives like Hassabis. However, there is a risk, too, that such recognition obscures concerns about both the technology itself and the increasing concentration of AI power in a handful of companies.
Hassabis himself has long craved this accolade, having told staff for years that that he wanted DeepMind, the AI lab he cofounded and sold to Google in 2015, to win between three and five Nobel prizes over the next decade.
At a news conference on Wednesday, he called the award “an unbelievable honor of a lifetime” and said he had been hoping to win it this time around.
Indeed, he initially shaped DeepMind as a research lab with utopian objectives, where many of its leading scientists worked on building AI systems to help cure diseases like cancer or solve global warming.
However, that humanitarian agenda faded to the background after the sale to Google and especially after the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which sparked a race among tech giants to deploy chatbot-style technology to businesses and consumers.
DeepMind has since become more product-focused (information about its healthcare and climate efforts disappeared from its homepage, for example), although it has continued with health-related efforts like AlphaFold. Out of DeepMind’s roughly 1,500-strong workforce, a team of just two dozen people were running the protein-folding project when it reached a critical milestone in 2020, according to a video documentary about the effort.
The Nobel will surely give Hassabis a credibility boost at Alphabet, where he has been leading the company’s fraught efforts to keep up with OpenAI. Google’s flagship AI model Gemini has grappled with controversies over its frequent mistakes and the possibility it would choke off traffic to the rest of the Web. Now perhaps a smoother path has been paved for Hassabis if he wants to become Alphabet’s next chief executive.
The former chess champion is a consummate strategist and rivals Sam Altman as the world’s most successful builder of AI technology, having pushed the boundaries of fields like deep learning, reinforcement learning and games-based models such as AlphaGo, which beat world champion go players eight years ago. Hassabis was already talking about taking on protein folding during those matches.
The glow benefits Google, too. Recent challenges from antitrust regulators over monopolistic behavior have not helped its reputation as a company founded on the principle of “don’t be evil.” Now with two Nobel prizes linked to work done by its scientists, the tech giant can more easily frame itself as providing services that are ultimately good for society, as its lawyers have been arguing, and perhaps generate goodwill more broadly with the public and regulators.
However, we should not forget the tension between the high-minded goals professed by Big Tech and what their businesses are really focused on. Google, which derives close to 80 percent of its revenue from advertising, is now putting ads into its new AI search tool. For businesses, that invites a new layer of complexity to online advertising, while consumers face the prospect of wading through AI-generated information that Google is trying to monetize, and which could one day become more biased toward advertisers.
Remember also that Google’s prioritization of human well-being was called into question less than three years ago when it fired two leading AI ethics experts who had warned about the risks that its AI models could entrench bias, spread misinformation and hoard energy, issues that have not gone away. A study in Nature last month, for instance, showed that AI tools like ChatGPT were making racist decisions about people based on their dialect.
The Nobel Prize is designed to recognize people who have made outstanding contributions to science, humanism and peace, so the foundation behind it has taken a bold stance in validating the work of AI and of one company in particular. The award to Hassabis — like the Nobel Peace Prize given to Barack Obama one year after he was elected as US president — feels a little premature. It is still unclear what kind of broad, real-world impact DeepMind’s protein-folding project will have on the medical field and drug discovery.
Let us hope the prize motivates well-endowed technology firms to invest much more in using AI for public service efforts like protein folding and in AI ethics research — and does not muddy the debate over the very real risks that AI poses to the world, too.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of We Are Anonymous.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS