It's nice of Schmidhuber to point out the quality papers with theoretical advancements and actual validations that fix the intellectual problems with his weak musings.
Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
21–30 of 105 posts
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#22List 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.
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#23List 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…
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 in deep learning himself.
But man doesn't know when an argument runs out of gas. His claims get grander with every passing year.
He would've just been the 'get off my lawn' grandpa of deep learning, but he somehow comes across as even more insufferable than that.
I wonder if 2023 schmidhuber was created because the polite one from a decade ago was ignored. A sort of evil phase, if you will.
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.
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#24This 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 equivalent of blaming the victim. If even half of Schmidhuber's accusations have a basis that's still a major academic scandal of epic proportions.
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#25We published a paper a while back in a genetic programming conference, and before the paper had been published (only the title was announced) Schmidhuber guessed that we had not cited his work. He very publically put us through the wringer for not citing him as the inventor of the concept were were examining. In fact we had not cited him: but among our dozen or so previous examples, we had cited two others which long…
But it is possible that he ought to have been cited as well? It doesn't matter if he's a hypocrite. The justification ultimately has to be, "Our paper did not use your work in any substantial way therefore a citation is not needed."
I can see how citations can get very complex for the purposes of scientific credit, traditionally there's a self-policed aspect to it in every academic community; however, in this century as advanced research gets more complex and globalized, it might be time for a more rigorous and neutral process of doing so.
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#26List 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. This is just plain wrong. No working version without the idea.
Ideas are dime-a-dozen.
I independently arrived at[0] something close to Max Tegmark's idea of the Mathematical Universe, almost nobody noticed and fewer still cared because I published it as a LiveJournal blog post whereas he fleshed it out into a whole book.
I didn't get credit because I didn't do the hard work that deserves credit, I had the flash of inspiration and stopped after a few paragraphs of mediocre student philosophy.
[0] and possibly predated, but I lost track of the date format when shifting from LJ to WP: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/mathematica...
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#27Shouldn't the title be "Turing Awardees Accused of Republishing..." rather than how it currently reads?
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#28List 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…
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 writing grants all the time and leaving the real work to the rest of the faculty, atrophying his skills too much to do anything now that the industry is moving so quikcly.
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I generally agree with you in these specific cases, I feel like this is a shortsighted form of argument nonetheless. Coming up with an idea begets a scalable implementation of it and it's not very wise to ascribe absolute value solely on one side of the equation.
I think it's less about scalability and more about identifying specific choices that are promising. A lot of Schmidthuber's work paints out broad ideas in grand strokes and suggests hundreds of potential neural networks without evaluating what choices in that massive space are good. He then claims credit when other people identify the specific one or two of those hundred models (often with minor variations that make…
But if other people identify and further develop one or two out of his models, he should still be cited. If they did not use his work at all, coming ith one or two models independently, then that's a different situation. It's a bit of an honor code thing as well, it's hard to prove if somebody has a read a paper or not. But then there's a more stringent standard where one cites as part of surveying preexisting work, which can result in a vast list.
Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit
#30We published a paper a while back in a genetic programming conference, and before the paper had been published (only the title was announced) Schmidhuber guessed that we had not cited his work. He very publically put us through the wringer for not citing him as the inventor of the concept were were examining. In fact we had not cited him: but among our dozen or so previous examples, we had cited two others which long…
But it is possible that he ought to have been cited as well? It doesn't matter if he's a hypocrite. The justification ultimately has to be, "Our paper did not use your work in any substantial way therefore a citation is not needed." I can see how citations can get very complex for the purposes of scientific credit, traditionally there's a self-policed aspect to it in every academic community; however, in this century…
Whenever you cite papers just because you're "politically supposed to", even though you don't think it's really intellectually useful for anyone to be aware of the cited paper, you're making the citations less useful for everybody.
Schmidhuber is only the worst of many abusers of the citation system. Everyone knows that anonymous reviewers are more likely to approve of people who cite their work. Someone is politically powerful? Better cite their paper, even though you don't really think it's a good paper and you didn't use it.
Schmidhuber is cited far more often than he should be, because people just don't want to deal with this crap, and the cost of sticking in one more citation is very low.