Connectionists: Stephen Hanson in conversation with Geoff Hinton

[Gary Marcus]

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your gracious note, but  the passage I objected to was not one line but several, (eg “I wish people would stop taking [Marcus] so seriously”),  and, critically, Hinton’s fabrication regarding machine translation was not an innocent mistake. People misrepresent me all the time, but in this case I had already specifically advised Hinton in private that what he said was misrepresenting me on this exact point.  

Moreover, the bullying campaign goes back several years. For example, moments before I gave a 2019 talk to an audience of computer scientists in Toronto, Hinton replied-all to the invite, in an effort to persuade the audience not to go. As it happens, his email didn’t get through to the list but I was cc’d (possibly inadvertently) and did receive it; the bullying intent was quite apparent. 

If AIHub believed in its charter, and wished to elevate the discourse, it would take down the entire passage and not support a persistent campaign to misrepresent and stifle a critical voice.  By all means, if Hinton wants to write a reasoned critique of my work, publish it. But as one eminent computer scientist wrote to me yesterday, “cronyism, collusion and now bullying and dehumanizing critics … should not be rewarded by this community.”

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.  And yes, I will read the rest of the interview with interest, and of course I’d love to get your thoughts about how the ‘hybrid movie” might end, but I’ll put that in a separate thread :)

Cheers.
Gary

> On Feb 3, 2022, at 5:10 AM, Stephen José Hanson <jose at rubic.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> 
> Since AIHUB was the one who posted the recent discussion between myself and Geoff, I suppose that could be the proximate causal event.
> But in looking over the transcript, I think you are overreacting to the single en passant comment in an hour about you.   Hardly, a  "personal attack".  
> 
> Moreover, I've known you for over 30 years, and frankly it does sound like something you might have said );-)   And I agree your positions in various books and articles have evolved over time.    But I and AIHUB are always happy to correct transcripts that have seriously miss-represented someone's claims.   
> 
> I would encourage you to read the whole transcript, as you will see the discussion does intersect with a number of issues you raised in an earlier post on what is learned/represented in DLs.
> Its important for those paying attention to this thread, to realize these are still very early times.    Many more shoes will drop in the next few years.  I for one don't believe one of those shoes will be Hybrid approaches to AI,  I've seen that movie before and it didn't end well.   
> 
> Best and hope you are doing well.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/2/22 9:52 PM, Gary Marcus wrote:
>> Dear Geoff,
>> 
>> Causality is often hard to establish, but I didn't start this thread; I merely responded to a false assertion of yours that was publicized at the top.
>> 
>> More broadly, it's a shame for the field that you won't engage in the real issues at hand, even with a clear home-court advantage.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 2, 2022, at 12:52, Geoffrey Hinton <geoffrey.hinton at gmail.com> <mailto:geoffrey.hinton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You started this thread and it was a mistake for me to engage in arguing with you. I have said all I want to say.  You have endless time for arguing and I don't. I find it more productive to spend time writing programs to see what works and what doesn't. You should try it sometime.
>>> 
>>> Geoff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> -- 
> <signature.png>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20220203/8dcb680e/attachment.html>