51–60 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meaning with defined goals (intrinsic objectives) instead of defined operations (hard-wired programs).
Once you've committed to performing an operation it becomes a goal. As the old saying goes, it's turtles all the way down...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watson and Crick gave all necessary and proper attributions.
The parent is referring to the fact that Watson and Crick relied on work of Rosalind Franklin without crediting her.
Lecun's post is not even a paper as stated in the foreward of the paper. But thanks for bringing it up, i will read it > This document is not a technical nor scholarly paper in the traditional sense, but a position paper expressing my vision for a path towards intelligent machines that learn more like animals and humans, that can reason and plan, and whose behavior is driven by intrinsic objectives, rather than by ha…
Well you can’t just state “this isn’t a paper” at a beginning of a paper to get an exemption from the rules and traditions of scientific discourse. It’s like the people believing it’s not a crime to pay with counterfeit money if the signature reads “Donald Duck”.
background from the great Genius Makers history of ML: The press needed heroes for its AI narrative. It chose Hinton, LeCun, Bengio, and sometimes Ng, thanks largely to the promotional efforts of Google and Facebook. The narrative did not extend to Jürgen Schmidhuber, the German researcher based on Lake Lugano who carried the torch for neural networks in Europe during the 1990s and 2000s. Some took issue with Schmidh…
In my opinion the difference that Hinton students made was using GPUs to run deep learning models. First in 2010, when publishing Theano at NIPS, making deep learning on a single computer node with a large GPUs very approachable ( using a Python framework, precursor to TensorFlow). Then in 2012, with Alex Krizhevsky masterfully using two GPUs to build the landmark model AlexNet, which outperformed traditional compute…
I recall watching a video of Schmidhuber presenting. He comes onstage, introduces himself, and then makes a joke. ("You again!") It's a funny joke. And it's self-deprecating. I remember thinking to myself, "This is a formidable Austrian." That and the Gödelmachine: I'm a fan. There's a simple and obvious way to solve this: cite the papers. It's traditional, it's noble, it's not hard, and it makes you look good. I men…
You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper. Why? Maybe those papers are not well written. Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc. So no, he does not have to be cited just because.
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.
Wonderful! Should still cite prior work.
> So no, he does not have to be cited just because.
Strawman.
If you're going to argue at least do it well.
The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong.
I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watson and Crick gave all necessary and proper attributions.
The parent is referring to the fact that Watson and Crick relied on work of Rosalind Franklin without crediting her.
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…
I believe it's reasonable for him to request a citation if significant results of his works are quoted. LeCun would probably also be upset if he read about his work in the newspaper, but mis-attributed to someone else. Also, millions in funding money depend on stuff like this. If LeCun can pretend to be the inventor, he gets the grant money. If Schmidhuber gets the citation he seeks, he can use that to apply for new…
Schmidhuber points out everything I said above. JEPA is old idea, etc. He also points out that the paper is "tabloid" article. Schmidhuber does not deserve being quoted for general ideas because he wrote paper of few of them.
background from the great Genius Makers history of ML: The press needed heroes for its AI narrative. It chose Hinton, LeCun, Bengio, and sometimes Ng, thanks largely to the promotional efforts of Google and Facebook. The narrative did not extend to Jürgen Schmidhuber, the German researcher based on Lake Lugano who carried the torch for neural networks in Europe during the 1990s and 2000s. Some took issue with Schmidh…
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…
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 an ethical disaster.
I really wish HN people wouldn't pile onto him this way.
.
> The field is full of huge egos and overly simplified narratives from a singular point of view.
Stop it. Primacy in publishing is a core topic in science. If these people were at universities, and not Google or Facebook, they'd have been fired for what they're doing.
Schmidthuber doesn't actually have a huge ego. He's just saying "guys, stop re-publishing my papers and claiming you came up with it."
You should really be deeply disgusted in Hinton right now, not explaining Schmidthuber's ego. Hinton is being a plagiarist *and he knows it*.
This isn't an accident and it isn't the first time.
Hinton is committing fraud, according to academic doctrine. This is an automatic termination at most universities on Earth, even through tenure.
It's time to stop making excuses for these rich men cherry picking other peoples' work for their and their employers' gain.
Schmidthuber is, if anything, being remarkably calm and polite, for having been robbed blind by megacorporations of credit and wealth for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Attribution is important but it's impossible to know all the literature that is out there and even when you've tried your best to seek out prior arts there is always a possibility that you've missed something or not understood the connection with something previously read. It's not like Schmidhuber's papers are obscure. >I've always thought that Schmidhuber was toxically uncharitable - what is the point of accusing…
> people stealing his ideas So, ideas can now be stolen after all? I thought the HN consensus was that ideas can't be owned, but implementations can be. Or is it somehow different when we're looking at science?
Quite a huge contrast to companies that want their ideas for their own so only they can profit from them.