P-NP

6 ms·

1.
by P-NP 3y ago
So which papers are you talking about?
2.
by P-NP 3y ago
> 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,
3.
by P-NP 3y ago
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 :-)
4.
by P-NP 3y ago
Agreed. The piece anticipated this straw man argument: > "the inventor of an important method should get credit for inventing it. She may not always be the one who popularizes it. Then the popularizer should get credit for populariz
5.
by P-NP 3y ago
In the past few hours I have had more time to look at the entire piece and download some of the referenced papers. So far I haven't found any claim that's factually inaccurate. I think there is a reason why the ACM Turing awardees
6.
by P-NP 3y ago
> without any real practical implementation Don't you know that billions of people are using his work on a daily basis on their smartphone? CV: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/cv.html
7.
by P-NP 3y ago
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 Pr
8.
by P-NP 3y ago
This sounds a bit like a justification of plagiarism. In science, you must cite the original work.
9.
by P-NP 3y ago
I can see some angry comments here, but so far I have not seen any facts that refute his claims. Once I spent a long time reviewing a related paper on Hacker News, and I think he is right about disputes B1, B2, B5, H2, H4, H5. I'd have
10.
by P-NP 4y ago
As the author points out: there isn’t any one Kalman filter. The Kalman filter is really a recipe for constructing optimal linear predictive filters, but the actual characteristics of the resulting filter will depend on the dynamics, state
11.
by P-NP 4y ago
It's actually on an academic review site called OpenReview where the dispute is ongoing: https://openreview.net/forum?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf LeCun claims four "main original contributions" and Schmidhuber basically d
12.
by P-NP 4y ago
A good way of ending this article: "I was fascinated by the way in which the personal agendas of committee members were clothed in seemingly reasonable attempts to place restrictions on the prize," says Christopher Hollings, a his
13.
by P-NP 4y ago
> The key result is not the introduction of ReLU, this is a misdirection. The key result is the outstanding performance on a general image data set by Alexnet. If the predecessors did all of the work, why was Hinton's lab the first
14.
by P-NP 4y ago
Quote from the article: "Dr. Taylor’s standard procedure included administering laxatives and bloodletting from the patient. In addition, Taylor used the blood from slaughtered pigeons as eye drops, and often applied a baked apple to t
15.
by P-NP 4y ago
You conveniently left out the plagiarism part regarding ReLUs: > 8. LBH devote an extra section to rectified linear units (ReLUs), citing papers of the 2000s by Hinton and his former students, without citing Fukushima who introduced ReLU
16.
by P-NP 4y ago
6th paragraph: Someone should have said this to me: Imagine a flashy spaceship lands in your backyard. The door opens and you are invited to investigate everything to see what you can learn. The technology is clearly millions of years beyon
17.
by P-NP 4y ago
>He famously accused Ian Goodfellow of appropriating his work to create generative adversarial networks (GANs) in a public venue (a NeurIPS workshop). Here is his take on what happened: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen&#x
18.
by P-NP 4y ago
Schmidhuber's DanNet pages: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/DanNet-triggers-deep-CNN-re... https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/2010-breakthrough-supervise...
19.
by P-NP 4y ago
They are listed here: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/scientific-integrity-turing...
20.
by P-NP 4y ago
"miffed for missing out on the AI revolution limelight?" Despite all those TV docs and newspaper articles about him? :-)
21.
by P-NP 5y ago
The history is well-known. Gödel started it. The "anglo-part" was mostly Church (decision problem). Turing simplified Church. At the same time, Zuse built the first real computer. I like this key part of the text: What exactly did
22.
by P-NP 5y ago
Von Neumann is actually mentioned 3 times in the text and in the references.
23.
by P-NP 5y ago
I could not really find anything convincing in those child parents. What exactly is the important contribution of Turing that is not mentioned in the text? Furthermore, the text does not credit "Lambda Calculus as only the basis of a h
24.
by P-NP 5y ago
I see neither hubris nor exaggeration. Before Turing, it was Church who proved the equivalence of the power of his lambda calculus and Gödel's universal model.
25.
by P-NP 5y ago
Neither did Gödel's automatic theorem prover require "human ingenuity or creativity required to carry out the steps" to enumerate all the theorems from the axioms, which are also enumerable. Gödel really described "the h
26.
by P-NP 5y ago
He writes: "Thus he identified fundamental limits of algorithmic theorem proving, computing, and any type of computation-based AI." An automatic theorem prover is a kind of AI. Gödel showed its limitations. There have been entire
27.
by P-NP 5y ago
This does not seem to be an extremely convincing answer. What exactly is the important contribution of Turing that is not mentioned in the text?
28.
by P-NP 5y ago
So you don't agree with the text but can you point out a concrete error instead of referring to "Many of the child parents to my main address to that"? I could not really find anything convincing in those child parents.
29.
by P-NP 5y ago
Good point. Where exactly does mathematical logic end and AI begin?
30.
by P-NP 5y ago
I see that von Neumann is actually mentioned 3 times in the text and in the references.

More ›