Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

people.idsia.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#31

Post by peterfirefly »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #24

This whole comment section is full of absolutely unacceptable ad-hominem attacks on Schmidhuber, from people who most likely haven't even read any of the works in question and are certainly not showing any of the "intellectual curiosity" this site is supposed to be about. Anyone who cares about academic integrity should at least not attack someone complaining of plagiarism. That sort of attack is the academic equival…

I tried reading one of his papers that he claimed contained an important concept avant la lettre. It was unreadable and it required an almost Marxist torture of the text to make it confess (weakly and unconvincingly) that it contained anything remotely like the idea he claimed it did.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#34

Post by lowbloodsugar »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #22
erostrate wrote: post #11

List of "famous" ML people not to waste time on: - Gary Marcus - Juergen Schmidhuber - Pedro Domingos - Max Tegmark - Eliezer Yudkowsky Some context for people unfamiliar with ML research: the author, Schmidhuber, is well known for claiming that he should get credit for many ML ideas. Most ML researchers think that: - He doesn't deserve the credit he claims, in most if not all cases. - There's a few cases where his p…

>> Credit belongs to whoever actually makes it work. That is according to whom? Is it a rule you just came up with or accepted practice? And if it's accepted practice, in what community is it accepted practice? Because where I publish and review there's really no such rule and credit belongs to the people who deserve credit for the work they've done that was useful to others.

Basically ideas are a dime a dozen. Sure, your idea might be a good one, but how do we spot your grain of sand is special when it looks the same as the rest of the desert? Essentially having an idea isn't useful to others. Demonstrating that your idea has legs is useful to others.

I don't have to deal with citing papers, but I once had to deal with people pitching me ideas, wanting me to sign an NDA, in exchange for 50% of the revenue after I did all the actual work. Just out of curiosity, I signed one once. It was a fart app, IIRC. They thought a fart app needed an NDA, and that I'd then go do all the work and give them 50% because they "had the idea". It was so laughably sad.

If you think these ideas are valuable, I have a beautiful clock for you. It is right twice a day. You'll have the same problem: you won't know when it's right. You'll need someone else's work to tell that.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#36

Post by erostrate »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #22
erostrate wrote: post #11

List of "famous" ML people not to waste time on: - Gary Marcus - Juergen Schmidhuber - Pedro Domingos - Max Tegmark - Eliezer Yudkowsky Some context for people unfamiliar with ML research: the author, Schmidhuber, is well known for claiming that he should get credit for many ML ideas. Most ML researchers think that: - He doesn't deserve the credit he claims, in most if not all cases. - There's a few cases where his p…

>> Credit belongs to whoever actually makes it work. That is according to whom? Is it a rule you just came up with or accepted practice? And if it's accepted practice, in what community is it accepted practice? Because where I publish and review there's really no such rule and credit belongs to the people who deserve credit for the work they've done that was useful to others.

> credit belongs to the people who deserve credit for the work they've done that was useful to others

Certainly agree. The point is that coming up with the idea, writing it as an equation, or an architecture diagram in a paper, is a small fraction of the effort that goes into making the idea work in a model showing good performance on real life datasets.

For example, just taking a random paper that Schmidhuber claims should give him credit for GANs, https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/FKI-126-90ocr.pdf hopefully you can easily see that a lot of work would be needed to turn this into a realistic image generation model. And that is, even if you admit that the idea is strongly related to GANs, which I'm not convinced of but won't spend time on.

> Credit belongs to whoever actually makes it work. >> That is according to whom? Is it a rule you just came up with or accepted practice? And if it's accepted practice, in what community is it accepted practice?

It is accepted practice in the ML community. If it weren't, Schmidhuber wouldn't be complaining.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#37

Post by logicchains »

erostrate wrote: post #11

List of "famous" ML people not to waste time on: - Gary Marcus - Juergen Schmidhuber - Pedro Domingos - Max Tegmark - Eliezer Yudkowsky Some context for people unfamiliar with ML research: the author, Schmidhuber, is well known for claiming that he should get credit for many ML ideas. Most ML researchers think that: - He doesn't deserve the credit he claims, in most if not all cases. - There's a few cases where his p…

>Most ML researchers think that: He doesn't deserve the credit he claims, in most if not all cases.

That deserves a source. Especially for "all cases"; I don't think anyone who understands machine learning could read some of his earlier papers and still think Ian Goodfellow invented GANs.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#38

Post by logicchains »

throwup238 wrote: post #28
screye wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad part is that Schmidhuber is not a grifter by any means. If the turning prize for deep learning could go to 5 people instead of 3, he would very likely be on that list. His lab is excellent and was easily Europe's best deep learning lab for decades before it blew up. Some of his complaints are valid too. European labs often get ignored, and he has been sidelined despite being one of the most important people i…

> I feel bad for him. He did get passed over of some deserved awards and recognition. But he reeks of resentment and thats never a good look. It's a terrible look. We're in the middle of one of the biggest gold rushes in tech history and he's wasting time complaining when he claims to be one of its pioneers? That effort is much better invested in building stuff but I suspect he's fallen into the classic PI trap of wr…

>atrophying his skills too much to do anything now that the industry is moving so quikcly.

His recent papers are still cutting edge. He's already solved self-improving AI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05780 , it just needs to be scaled up.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#39

Post by logicchains »

hiddencost wrote: post #3

Schmidhuber really needs to stop. He's been beating this drum for decades and he's wrong.

So he should just give up and let people get away with plagiarism? Do you teach your kid to just give in and let bullies get their way?

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#40

Post by logicchains »

martopix wrote: post #18
hiddencost wrote: post #3

Schmidhuber really needs to stop. He's been beating this drum for decades and he's wrong.

If a guy becomes famous almost exclusively for having a beef with someone else (and this someone else really doesn't need to beat any drum in order to be famous), then something is wrong. Basically these days this is what Schmidhuber is associated to. Which is kind of sad, really.

>If a guy becomes famous almost exclusively for having a beef with someone else

He was famous well before that for having one of the best labs in Europe, and many key papers in early deep learning. He's only famous for the beef among people who aren't familiar with his earlier work and the huge contributions it made to the field.

Post reply on HN