undefdev

undefdev t1_izc3tr1 wrote

Reply to comment by JustOneAvailableName in [D] If you had to pick 10-20 significant papers that summarize the research trajectory of AI from the past 100 years what would they be by versaceblues

> Because Schmidhuber claiming that transformers are based on his work was a meme for 3-4 years before he actually did that. Like here.

But why should memes be relevant in science? Not citing someone because there are memes around their person seems kind of arbitrary. If it's just memes, maybe we shouldn't take them too seriously.

7

undefdev t1_izbui6y wrote

Reply to comment by JustOneAvailableName in [D] If you had to pick 10-20 significant papers that summarize the research trajectory of AI from the past 100 years what would they be by versaceblues

> So I am not gonna cite Fast Weight Programmers when I want to write about transformers.

I think you are probably refering to this paper: Linear Transformers Are Secretly Fast Weight Programmers

It seems like they showed that linear transformers are equivalent to fast weight programmers. If linear transformers are relevant to your research, why not cite fast weight programmers? Credit is cheap, right? We can still call them linear transformers.

4

undefdev t1_izbjvcl wrote

Reply to comment by Screye in [D] If you had to pick 10-20 significant papers that summarize the research trajectory of AI from the past 100 years what would they be by versaceblues

> Sadly, he is a curmudgeon who complains a lot and claims even more than he has actually achieved.....so people have kind of soured on him lately.

What did he claim that he didn't achieve? I didn't dig too deeply into it, but it always seemed to me that his complaints haven't been addressed, but nobody has an incentive to support him.

6