4 ms·
The article does not mention the first and second authors of the research work, which is an atrocious thing to do. The paper was authored by Sara Sabour, Nicho
by smhx 9y ago
The article does not mention the first and second authors of the research work, which is an atrocious thing to do.
The paper was authored by Sara Sabour, Nicholas Frosst, Geoffrey E Hinton in that order.
- wyattk 9y agoI agree but it's unsurprising. Hinton has a bit of "star power" in the ML community. He's done a lot of pioneering work on neural networks, and stated that he's been working on this capsule concept for years. I get why the focus is on him but they could have at least mentioned the others.
- nabla9 9y agoCapsules are Hinton's idea. His speech "What is Wrong With Convolutional Neural Nets?" was 2014 and he was already working with capsules. http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/bcs/videos/30698-what-s-wrong-with-convolutional-nets http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/bcs/videos/30698-what-s-wr... The credit from the paper should go to all researchers of course, but Hinton is main driving force behind the research.
- faitswulff 9y agoI'd say the first and second authors still warrant a mention, at least.
- dmix 9y agoThe article was updated to include the two other authors names. There is an update at the end of the article mentioning this.
- justicezyx 9y agoI would argue that ideas are cheap until they are proven correct, relatively, compared to the effort to proven them, in some cases, also to apply them into real world scenarios. I see the society give unproportionally large credit to the so-called "leaders", because they pioneered certain "ideas". That's wrong. Histories bury too many talented individuals who are not recognized, because of some pioneers are frantically sucked all the attentions the society can give. In professional research community, authors are listed because they are deemed a critical contributor to the work. Plain and simple.
- hatmatrix 9y agoOne might argue that any number of researchers could have performed the labor of testing the idea, whereas the originator of the idea itself is non-fungible.
- 52-6F-62 9y agoI had the good fortune of seeing Nicholas Frosst speak at Google I/O in Waterloo this year, and he was great. That guy has a clear passion for what he's doing, and seems immensely knowledgeable on the subject. My favourite speaker of the event by far. I haven't heard yet from Ms. Sabour, but if Frosst is at all representative of the team (as I'm sure is at minimum the case), then it's a shame they aren't mentioned. From what I understand so far they work rather closely with Mr. Hinton on a regular basis.
- mizzao 9y agoThe biggest name usually gets all the fame on academic work - a "Matthew effect". Moreover, the last author is usually the most senior person or someone who funded the project; usually perceived as important or more important than the first author who "did all the work".
- justicezyx 9y ago> usually perceived as important or more important than the first author who "did all the work" To be accurate, that person is considered the one who will claim the credit after the student graduates. Not that they are important to the work. Most academic papers are mostly students work under a general instruction from the advisor.