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

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#91

Post by erostrate »

P-NP wrote: post #84
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…

What a troll thing to write. User erostrate taking down the often so-called "father of modern AI" whose work is on erostrate's smartphone :-)

Are you saying Schmidhuber should also get credit for smartphones?

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#92

Post by gexaha »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #7
gexaha wrote: post #4

I wonder what Schmidhuber colleagues think of all of this.

Within the field his name has become a punchline to joke about self-aggrandizing. But yeah, you honestly have to wonder what it is like day-to-day working with someone with this level of delusions of grandeur.

I mean, his co-authors, or colleagues at IDSIA

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#93

Post by P-NP »

lacker wrote: post #30
calf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 political…

> Schmidhuber is cited far more often than he should be

You haven't even read the paper, have you? Otherwise you'd see that it's Hinton and Bengio who are cited far more often than they should be. Just look at disputes B1, B2, B5, H2, H4, and H5 to see how they republished parts of his work again and again without citing it. No honest scientist can approve of something like that.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#94

Post by SeanLuke »

P-NP wrote: post #72
SeanLuke wrote: post #9

We 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…

Are you talking about the 1985 Genetic Programming paper by Cramer? Unlike Hinton and Bengio, Schmidhuber has corrected himself: > BTW, I committed a similar error in 1987 when I published what I thought was the first paper on Genetic Programming (GP), that is, on automatically evolving computer programs[GP1][GP] (authors in alphabetic order). At least our 1987 paper[GP1] seems to be the first on GP for codes with lo…

No.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#95

Post by SeanLuke »

calf wrote: post #25
SeanLuke wrote: post #9

We 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…

Our paper was an analysis of an already established technique used nearly identically by a number of previous papers. We dug up about a dozen IIRC, including the seminal ones, but we missed his. He didn't go after us for not citing him (which he had divined). He went after us for not acknowledging that he invented it (which he did not).

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#96

Post by gillesjacobs »

jltsiren wrote: post #55
KRAKRISMOTT wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His students you mean, otherwise he would be first author. Academia is just like capitalism, with credits substituting for capital. The capital owner (laboratory head/professor) always gets a cut of everything published.

Authorship conventions vary a lot within the academia. In general, the closer the name is to either end of the author list, the more significant their contributions likely were. Things also vary from paper to paper. Sometimes the first author just did the actual work for somebody else, and sometimes they also made significant intellectual contributions. (If the first author is listed as the sole corresponding author,…

> In general, the closer the name is to either end of the author list, the more significant their contributions likely were.

In ML, NLP, and many Humanities too, the supervisor (supervising professor/postdoc, lab head, PI) is put last regardless of contribution. The rest of the author list is ranked in descending order for contribution. Often the last author's contributions are very limited to obtaining funding or proof-reading.

Now this practice is controversial with many venues stating that obtaining funding and only supervising is not a valid reason for authorship, but in my experience this practice doesn't die out.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#97

Post by jltsiren »

screye wrote: post #66
jltsiren wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authorship conventions vary a lot within the academia. In general, the closer the name is to either end of the author list, the more significant their contributions likely were. Things also vary from paper to paper. Sometimes the first author just did the actual work for somebody else, and sometimes they also made significant intellectual contributions. (If the first author is listed as the sole corresponding author,…

Yep, in ML, the head of the lab is always last author.... even if it was equal contribution work with their own PhD student. The PhD student needs the street cred a lot more than a tenured PI.

In some fields and some situations, last-author papers are actually more valuable than first-author papers. A first-author paper tells that you are capable of working as a junior researcher, while a last-author paper is a signal of your success as a senior researcher.

I once had a paper where I shared first authorship with four other people. That implies that the project was large enough that different people were in charge of different subprojects. Which in turn implies that the senior author must have made major contributions by being in charge of the entire project.

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#98

Post by [deleted] »

jahsome wrote: post #77
lacker wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 political…

> 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. The audacity of deciding on behalf of readers whether information is valuable to them when publishing an academic paper is quite an interesting concept to me. I'm not published in journa…

[deleted]

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#99

Post by P-NP »

SeanLuke wrote: post #94
P-NP wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about the 1985 Genetic Programming paper by Cramer? Unlike Hinton and Bengio, Schmidhuber has corrected himself: > BTW, I committed a similar error in 1987 when I published what I thought was the first paper on Genetic Programming (GP), that is, on automatically evolving computer programs[GP1][GP] (authors in alphabetic order). At least our 1987 paper[GP1] seems to be the first on GP for codes with lo…

No.

So which papers are you talking about?

Re: Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas without credit

#100

Post by peterfirefly »

logicchains wrote: post #42
gillesjacobs wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within the field his name has become a punchline to joke about self-aggrandizing. But yeah, you honestly have to wonder what it is like day-to-day working with someone with this level of delusions of grandeur.

>But yeah, you honestly have to wonder what it is like day-to-day working with someone with this level of delusions of grandeur. It's not delusions of grandeur; anyone with half a brain who read his early papers would see he clearly came up with the idea of a GAN well before Ian Goodfellow.

That particular claim seems to be true, yeah.
Post reply on HN