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

[Schmidhuber Juergen]

Yes, Barak, in hindsight we know well that both Rosenblatt [R58-62] and Minsky [M69] were wrong in several ways. But by now we have known that for many decades! Obviously, today’s surveys should reflect this. However, the previously mentioned self-serving DL surveys (2015-2021) [DL3, DL3a, S20] are still promulgating the same old misleading PDP narratives, although their authors know better. Alarmingly, revisionist surveys of the so-called "DL conspiracy" and the similar "ELM conspiracy” (mentioned in the previous msg) are still being cited! What’s wrong with our field? Jürgen

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





> On 1 Feb 2022, at 17:07, Barak A. Pearlmutter <barak at pearlmutter.net> wrote:
> 
> > "The great expectations in the press (Fig. 3) were dashed by Minsky and Papert (7),
> 
> Just to be clear, below are some of those "great expectations in the press" that Minsky and Papert were referring to. The first I've included is actually by Rosenblatt. So, Minsky and Papert were wrong in their self-declared intuition that learning in multilayer systems wouldn't be possible. Maybe evidence was even available before they wrote that paragraph, although they were apparently not aware of it. But Rosenblatt was wrong too, in his predictions. And he wasn't pitching it as his intution: he said it was a done deal, a fait accompli! So looking back, both were wrong. But who was *more* wrong?
> 
> --Barak.
> 
> <perceptron-cornell-research-trends-1958.jpg>
> <perceptron-rl-nyt-p25-8-Jul-1958.png>