4 ms·

> … the publication of key research like LSTMs in 2014 … Minor nitpick, but LSTMs date to 1997 and were not invented by Google. [1] [1] Hochreiter and Schmidh

> … the publication of key research like LSTMs in 2014 … Minor nitpick, but LSTMs date to 1997 and were not invented by Google. [1] [1] Hochreiter and Schmidhuber (1997). Long short-term memory. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6795963 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6795963

Scea91 3y ago
Seems more than a nitpick to me. I find the essay interesting but this line raised some distrust in me. How can someone have these deep insights into Google's ML strategy and the evolution of the field and simultaneously think LSTMs were invented by Google in 2014?
- brilee 3y ago
  sorry, I had a mind fart. I was thinking of seq2seq https://research.google/pubs/pub43155/ https://research.google/pubs/pub43155/ Pushing the fix now...
  - DavidSJ 3y ago
    seq2seq was indeed a big deal.
  - jll29 3y ago
    You're lucky you could push a fix before Schmidhuber [1] noticed! ;) [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11279 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11279
- logicchains 3y ago
  >How can someone have these deep insights into Google's ML strategy and the evolution of the field and simultaneously think LSTMs were invented by Google in 2014? It may not have been accidental; there's a deliberate movement among some people in the ML community to deny Jürgen Schmidhuber credit for inventing LSTMs and GANs.
  - seatsniffer 3y ago
    That's something I hadn't heard about. Is there any particular reason for this?
    - nighthawk454 3y ago
      It's become somewhat of a meme, where Schmidhuber seemingly tries to claim credit for nearly everything. I _think_ it's because he published ideas back in the 90s or so that weren't fully executable/realized at the time, and later people figured out how to actually flesh them out do it, and supposedly didn't cite him appropriately/enough. Often the ideas weren't exactly the same - but rather he claims they're derivatives of the concept he was going for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber#Credit_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber#Credit...
      - seatsniffer 3y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'll check out the link also.
        sundarurfriend 3y ago
        Just to make it clear, you're hearing one side of the argument. There are also a lot of people who firmly believe that Schmidhuber was wrongfully deprived of recognition he deserved. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but the issue isn't as clear cut as your parent comment might have made it sound like.
        nighthawk454 3y ago
        Yes, thanks. Didn't intend to be one-sided. Not super versed in this subject so please everyone do your own research!

Scea91 3y ago

Seems more than a nitpick to me. I find the essay interesting but this line raised some distrust in me. How can someone have these deep insights into Google's ML strategy and the evolution of the field and simultaneously think LSTMs were invented by Google in 2014?

brilee 3y ago
sorry, I had a mind fart. I was thinking of seq2seq https://research.google/pubs/pub43155/ https://research.google/pubs/pub43155/ Pushing the fix now...
- DavidSJ 3y ago
  seq2seq was indeed a big deal.
- jll29 3y ago
  You're lucky you could push a fix before Schmidhuber [1] noticed! ;) [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11279 https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11279
logicchains 3y ago
>How can someone have these deep insights into Google's ML strategy and the evolution of the field and simultaneously think LSTMs were invented by Google in 2014? It may not have been accidental; there's a deliberate movement among some people in the ML community to deny Jürgen Schmidhuber credit for inventing LSTMs and GANs.
- seatsniffer 3y ago
  That's something I hadn't heard about. Is there any particular reason for this?
  - nighthawk454 3y ago
    It's become somewhat of a meme, where Schmidhuber seemingly tries to claim credit for nearly everything. I _think_ it's because he published ideas back in the 90s or so that weren't fully executable/realized at the time, and later people figured out how to actually flesh them out do it, and supposedly didn't cite him appropriately/enough. Often the ideas weren't exactly the same - but rather he claims they're derivatives of the concept he was going for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber#Credit_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber#Credit...
    - seatsniffer 3y ago
      Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'll check out the link also.
      - sundarurfriend 3y ago
        Just to make it clear, you're hearing one side of the argument. There are also a lot of people who firmly believe that Schmidhuber was wrongfully deprived of recognition he deserved. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but the issue isn't as clear cut as your parent comment might have made it sound like.
        nighthawk454 3y ago
        Yes, thanks. Didn't intend to be one-sided. Not super versed in this subject so please everyone do your own research!