Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ulfgardleo t1_ixhlloe wrote

Reply to comment by RobbinDeBank in [D] Schmidhuber: LeCun's "5 best ideas 2012-22” are mostly from my lab, and older by RobbinDeBank

but he does not claim that. What he does claim is that developments in his lab predate those ideas. It might be that those ideas were rediscovered independently by others, but as in so many things, who is first matters. And from a scientific point of view, not doing literature review for ones own ideas is bad science, and especially so if a lab strategically avoids citing some other lab.

It shouldn't be so difficult to write "idea X [1] rediscovered by [more prominent 2] has led to" in ones work.

17

MrAcurite t1_ixjgpkd wrote

> And from a scientific point of view, not doing literature review for ones own ideas is bad science

I'd like to agree, but honestly ML is at the point where you couldn't possibly exhaustively review the literature to make sure your own work is original. I think you should make a sincere attempt at it, but the volume of publications per unit time is just beyond the ability of a human being to handle.

6

RobbinDeBank OP t1_ixhmsqs wrote

I don’t mean this very post but his attitudes overall on this topic. There are definitely breakthrough out there where authors don’t know about the existence of Schmidhuber’s related works from a long time ago under different terminologies. He’s probably the most brilliant mind in this field with the amount of original ideas he has, but most of those aren’t popularized and might be independently rediscovered decades later.

1