Connectionists: Scientific Integrity, the 2021 Turing Lecture, etc.

[Jonathan D. Cohen]

The same incentive structures (and values they reflect) are not necessarily the same — nor should they necessary be — in commercial and academic environments.


jdc



On Oct 28, 2021, at 12:03 PM, Marina Meila <mmp2 at uw.edu<mailto:mmp2 at uw.edu>> wrote:

Since credit is a form of currency in academia, let's look at the "hard currency" rewards of invention. Who gets them?  the first company to create a new product usually fails.
However, the interesting thing is that society (by this I mean the society most of us we work in) has found it necessary to counteract this, and we have patent laws to protect the rights of the inventors.

The point is not whether patent laws are effective or not, it's the social norm they implement. That to protect invention one should  pay attention to rewarding the original inventors, whether we get the "product" directly from them or not.

Best wishes,

       Marina

-- Marina Meila
Professor of Statistics
University of Washington


On 10/28/21, 5:59 AM, "Connectionists" <connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu<mailto:connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu>> wrote:
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 ;^).
jdc


On Oct 28, 2021, at 4:23 AM, Danko Nikolic <danko.nikolic at gmail.com<mailto:danko.nikolic at gmail.com>> wrote:

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.
Danko




On Thu, 28 Oct 2021, 10:13 Randall O'Reilly <oreilly at ucdavis.edu<mailto:oreilly at ucdavis.edu>> wrote:


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).

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.

Cheers,
- Randy

> On Oct 27, 2021, at 12:52 AM, Schmidhuber Juergen <juergen at idsia.ch<mailto:juergen at idsia.ch>> wrote:
>
> 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<mailto: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!
>
> Jürgen Schmidhuber
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20211028/55b95420/attachment.html>