Connectionists: Scientific Integrity, the 2018 Turing Lecture

[Juyang Weng]

Dear Juergen,

Thank you very much for bringing this important issue to the attention of
this email list.

The Brain-Mind Institute (BMI) is planning on a series of grassroots
efforts to address this and other wider scope problems, so that the
scientific community, taxpayers and buyers of publicly listed stocks can
get informed.  The phenomena you raised are not just a "Scientific
Integrity" issue, they are much wider and deeper.

Here is a YouTube playlist around the Turing Award 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLntQ4jEfo0MvBeC2lWsRY2ErHs2dFmqY0

I suggest connectionists at cmu not reject such posts (which it blocked some
before, like a well known "archive" site), so that the scientific community
and public can communicate about such important matters.

Yours humbly,
-John Weng
----
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:52:09 +0000
From: Schmidhuber Juergen <juergen at idsia.ch>
To: "connectionists at cs.cmu.edu" <connectionists at cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Connectionists: Scientific Integrity, the 2021 Turing
        Lecture,        etc.
Message-ID: <EDAFC918-66B7-4E7D-871F-A96D49D01523 at supsi.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi, fellow artificial neural network enthusiasts!

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.

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
juergen at idsia.ch:

https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/scientific-integrity-turing-award-deep-learning.html

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.

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.

Thank you all in advance for your help!

J?rgen Schmidhuber
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20211027/2eedb353/attachment.html>