The prize winners are ultimately selected by a group of mid-age to old professors. And to tell the truth (I work at a research institute in Stockholm), some of the old folks seem to have huge FOMO. They know that they cannot keep up themselves, they have no idea (and no way of finding out) who is actually good and who is just pretending, which leads to recruitment of an 'interesting' bunch of young group leaders. Some of them are surely good, but I know of at least one guy who holds presentations as if he invented AlphaFold himself, while having contributed one single paper of interest to the field. Large turn off for me.
I do not criticize them for having FOMO. But I have my doubts when it is the 60-year-olds that are the most enthusiastic about something new (as long as it is not a new ABBA album), given the number of grifters out there. And there would have been many others that also deserve a Nobel, those three could easily have waited another 20 years. If it really was those that had the highest impact the last year who won the prize, it (or rather "Medicine") should have gone to GLP-1/Semaglutide research.
Right but this is a paradigm shift. If anything the 60 year-olds dumped on AI. Statisticians dumped on AI. Cybernetics/engineers all dumped on it. Just like everyone dumped on mRNA vaccines. I do agree with you about GLP-1 though that's legit as is the HIV vaccine.
But still the way forward is computational thinking that is very clear.
