if this is the tweet referred to: https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/948811917593780225 https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/948811917593780225 https://

if this is the tweet referred to: https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/948811917593780225 https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/948811917593780225 https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*W5WhToR_WP4I74Lo4uJ-1Q.png https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*W5WhToR_WP4I74Lo4u... Lecun didn't say he is not allowed criticize. He said that his contributions are zero but his criticisms abound. Also some of the arguments are odd: It is not possible to show the limits of deep learning because people don't know how to prove what those limits are. If there was a "limits of the universal approximation theorem" paper^, then people would use that to derive the limits of their DL systems. OTOH he proposes a number of possible implementations for symbols for which the evidence is not there, and there is no theoretical reason that necessitates their existence. Both arguments are not really falsifiable. ^ Actually there is at least one, however it seems it requires knowledge about the smoothness of the approximated function. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X03000215 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X0...