<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#e3cba9">
<p>Well, to popularize is not to invent. <br>
</p>
<p>Many of Juergen's concerns could be solved with some scholarship,
such that authors look sometime before 2006 for other relevant
references.</p>
<p>This isn't a social issue.. good science writers know they didn't
invent the algorithms they are describing for AI applications.</p>
<p>OTOH, Dave Rumelhart, who introduction of the backprop learning
methods, often gets confused for gradient descent and <br>
consequently, Newton *should* be referenced for gosh sakes! <br>
</p>
<p> But keep in mind: Context matters. The PDP framework was
pretty exclusively about Cognitive Science not about how to solve
multivariable engineering problems. The real value of Dave and
PDP, was framing associative learning in networks and how that
might provide a foot-hold in understanding cognitive function in
the brain. It was no accident that before Dave became very ill,
he was working in Cognitive Neuroscience and doing Brain scanning
research.</p>
<p>Sure, if we work at it everything is connected to everything, but
other then historical exegesis, this is useless for paradigm
change and scientific forward motion.</p>
<p>Steve<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/28/21 8:49 AM, Jonathan D. Cohen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:27D911A3-9C51-48A6-8034-7FF3A3E89BBB@princeton.edu">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
As a friendly amendment to both Randy and Danko’s comments, it is
also worth noting that science is an *intrinsically social*
endeavor, and therefore communication is a fundamental factor.
This may help explain why the *last* person to invent or discover
something is the one who gets the [social] credit. That is,
giving credit to those who disseminate may even have normative
value. After all, if a tree falls in the forrest… As for those
who care more about discovery and invention than dissemination,
well, for them credit assignment may not be as important ;^).
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">jdc<br class="">
<div class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 28, 2021, at 4:23 AM, Danko
Nikolic <<a href="mailto:danko.nikolic@gmail.com"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">danko.nikolic@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">Yes Randall, sadly so. I
have seen similar examples in neuroscience and
philosophy of mind. Often, (but not always), you
have to be the one who popularizes the thing to
get the credit. Sometimes, you can get away, you
just do the hard conceptual work and others doing
for you the (also hard) marketing work. The best
bet is doing both by yourself. Still no
guarantee.
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Danko<br class="">
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 28 Oct
2021, 10:13 Randall O'Reilly <<a
href="mailto:oreilly@ucdavis.edu" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">oreilly@ucdavis.edu</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
I vaguely remember someone making an interesting
case a while back that it is the *last* person
to invent something that gets all the credit.
This is almost by definition: once it is
sufficiently widely known, nobody can
successfully reinvent it; conversely, if it can
be successfully reinvented, then the previous
attempts failed for one reason or another (which
may have nothing to do with the merit of the
work in question).<br class="">
<br class="">
For example, I remember being surprised how
little Einstein added to what was already
established by Lorentz and others, at the
mathematical level, in the theory of special
relativity. But he put those equations into a
conceptual framework that obviously changed our
understanding of basic physical concepts.
Sometimes, it is not the basic equations etc
that matter: it is the big picture vision.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Cheers,<br class="">
- Randy<br class="">
<br class="">
> On Oct 27, 2021, at 12:52 AM, Schmidhuber
Juergen <<a href="mailto:juergen@idsia.ch"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">juergen@idsia.ch</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Hi, fellow artificial neural network
enthusiasts!<br class="">
> <br class="">
> The connectionists mailing list is perhaps
the oldest mailing list on ANNs, and many neural
net pioneers are still subscribed to it. I am
hoping that some of them - as well as their
contemporaries - might be able to provide
additional valuable insights into the history of
the field.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Following the great success of massive open
online peer review (MOOR) for my 2015 survey of
deep learning (now the most cited article ever
published in the journal Neural Networks), I've
decided to put forward another piece for MOOR. I
want to thank the many experts who have already
provided me with comments on it. Please send
additional relevant references and suggestions
for improvements for the following draft
directly to me at
<a href="mailto:juergen@idsia.ch"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">juergen@idsia.ch</a>:<br
class="">
> <br class="">
> <a
href="https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/scientific-integrity-turing-award-deep-learning.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">
https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/scientific-integrity-turing-award-deep-learning.html</a><br
class="">
> <br class="">
> The above is a point-for-point critique of
factual errors in ACM's justification of the ACM
A. M. Turing Award for deep learning and a
critique of the Turing Lecture published by ACM
in July 2021. This work can also be seen as a
short history of deep learning, at least as far
as ACM's errors and the Turing Lecture are
concerned.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> I know that some view this as a
controversial topic. However, it is the very
nature of science to resolve controversies
through facts. Credit assignment is as core to
scientific history as it is to machine learning.
My aim is to ensure that the true history of our
field is preserved for posterity.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Thank you all in advance for your help! <br
class="">
> <br class="">
> Jürgen Schmidhuber<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<img src="cid:part6.57B429C1.372DFB76@rubic.rutgers.edu"
border="0"></div>
</body>
</html>