In the original will, invention is given the same weight as discovery.

One could also argue that in 1895, applied computer science and information theory would be considered physics.

>The most important factor tends to be the positive impact on society

Making it even more baffling that this won then

I can understand the sentiment against the current "AI" crace with chatbots. But are you dismissing neural networks as a whole as non-impactful?

What about;

- Improved weather forecasts

- Protein folding

- Medical imaging and diagnostics

- Text-to-speech and voice recognition

- Language Translation

- Finance fraud detection

- Supply chain and logistics optimization

- Natural disaster prediction

If you don't think machine learning and neural networks have made massive positive contributions to humanity then you are naive.

"Massive" seems overstated. Also doubt that it's net positive.

You're probably only thinking about the modern chatbots when you say that.

Perhaps you have less idea what he's thinking than you think you do.

why? this should be questioned

The original wording explicitly mentions "discovery or invention within the field of physics", so that wording has been reflected in some of the prices over the years.

Also, it's a price based on a will from over 100 years ago, managed by a private institution. The institution can be as arbitrary as it wants. They don't need to answer to anyone.