71–80 of 95 posts
Who cares my shit doesn’t get cited all the time but I don’t blog about it like a bitch.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
LeCunT
LeCun being LeCun.
It's him again. That must be enough to give context on who I am talking about. I do not know what to tell about him. Sure he has explored a lot of topic and never got the limelight like others. But I think it's time for him to stop gaslighting about other researchers just because they didn't cite his papers. Sure, they could have never read it. He can make his work shout by publishing better papers and better design.…
We are scientists and can use names. 'him' is Jürgen Schmidhuber. He's a luminary of ML, but he has entered into several attribution controversies. He famously accused Ian Goodfellow of appropriating his work to create generative adversarial networks (GANs) in a public venue (a NeurIPS workshop). I agree with the parent comment. Ultimately, Science is about advancing the human condition more than celebrating great in…
Your view of what Science is about is aspirational, it's what we (and not all of us at that) hope is true, not what's actually true. Science is motivated by a mixture of (a) personal prestige and social status-seeking, (b) personal pleasure (some people simply delight in studying and understanding intricate patterns and phenomena), and (c) national prestige of nation states and profit motives of wealthy corporations.
I, for one, don't like it when people pull out the "I'm helping others" bit when motivating things. Everything humans do is pleasure and reward-seeking, even charity and helping other is pleasure. I would like if people were always honest about this, people love helping stray cats not because they are a helpless life (the fly stuck in a spider's web is a helpless life), but because cats are amusing and interaction with them gives (some of) us lots of pleasure. Let the "helping others" motivation always be something other people ascribe to you, your own self-stated motivation should always be "Because I wanted to", if you want to be honest.
>Science is about advancing the human condition more than celebrating great individuals.
This gives the impression that those 2 goals are somehow in tension, or that they compete for resources. But giving credit, even if you don't know prior work and are actually re-discovering it from scratch, is trivial in this day and age. Paper databases, keyword search, text-similarity search. It's not hard, not compared to actually writing the paper.
I'm not actually interested in the specific contraversy and other people here are pointing out that Lecun's paper is a position paper which are generally subject to more lax citation standards, but your statment just irked a pet peeve of mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are scientists and can use names. 'him' is Jürgen Schmidhuber. He's a luminary of ML, but he has entered into several attribution controversies. He famously accused Ian Goodfellow of appropriating his work to create generative adversarial networks (GANs) in a public venue (a NeurIPS workshop). I agree with the parent comment. Ultimately, Science is about advancing the human condition more than celebrating great in…
I know Schmidhuber is an important figure in deep learning and I barely know anything about deep learning. The guy is on top of the world and could find better things to do than whine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic Strawman. > nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper. Did you mean "first paper that introduces a concept."? In any event, also a strawman. > Maybe those papers are not well written. Hypothetical. (Have you read the papers? I've read some and I would say they are well-written.) > Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc. Wonde…
I'm not sure you know what Strawman means. Are you a researcher? Have you published research papers? >> The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong. Again, are you a researcher? These are not the options. Also what even is "slight him" or "prove him wrong"? My comments above are about citation practices not this one researcher in particular. >> I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights wi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Good day sir.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent is referring to the fact that Watson and Crick relied on work of Rosalind Franklin without crediting her.
Watson and Crick's 1953 Nature paper says "We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College, London."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are scientists and can use names. 'him' is Jürgen Schmidhuber. He's a luminary of ML, but he has entered into several attribution controversies. He famously accused Ian Goodfellow of appropriating his work to create generative adversarial networks (GANs) in a public venue (a NeurIPS workshop). I agree with the parent comment. Ultimately, Science is about advancing the human condition more than celebrating great in…
>Ultimately, Science is about advancing the human condition more than celebrating great individuals. Giving proper credit to prior work is a fundamental component of scientific progress. Just look at the Chinese academic system to see what happens to science when people are given free reign to plagiarise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reading some Schmidhuber's writings on this issue is a great way to learn the history and development of AI and ANN's that is often missed. At the same time Schmidhuber's tone and anal-retentive attitude explains why he is considered so annoying. The field is full of huge egos and overly simplified narratives from a singular point of view. For example, it's true that Hinton was a torchbearer of neural networks for se…
> At the same time Schmidhuber's tone and anal-retentive attitude explains why he is considered so annoying. The people calling him annoying are generally hangers-on trying to display that they're part of the group - people who took a class once 20 years ago and think they need now to come explain. He's a lovely man, and he's 100% correct to be angry that people are getting rich and famous while not citing him. It's…
What are some of the papers he has plagiarized?