This whole account has virtually zero mention of how later techniques improved upon or innovated on his, and very little account of how his contributions were (like everyone else's) evolutions of existing methods. It reads almost like Schmidhuber or his students invented and solved everything from scratch, and nobody else has done shit since.
The guy clearly wants to be more included in the standard narrative, but being so self aggrandizing is doing him zero favors. If were capable of writing an honest, charitable account of how his work fits into a much larger field, it would be much easier to take him more seriously.
I mean it's self-promotional yes, but I read this as more of a blog post about advances specifically in his own group. For the Schmidhuberian take on the broader history of deep learning, this other one's the go-to article (though it's much longer): https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7828
Not everyone likes that article either, but it does at least extensively cite prior work, i.e. accounts for "how his contributions were (like everyone else's) evolutions of existing methods". In particular, sections 5.1–5.4 credit a large amount of work from the 1960s-80s that he considers foundational.
Really? The title itself says, "Deep Learning: Our Miraculous Year 1990-1991". It's an account of their work during that year. And he cites like a 100 articles there.
This kind of rhetoric was partly responsible for why he didn't receive the Turing award last year which he thoroughly deserved. We seem incapable of appreciating achievements of people who don't match our ideal of personality type.
There is a subset of people who does not like Schmidhuber. According to my personal observations, this subset overlaps quite a lot with people who tend to underestimate the importance of proper credit assignment.
Comments
God, Schmidhuber is insufferable.
This whole account has virtually zero mention of how later techniques improved upon or innovated on his, and very little account of how his contributions were (like everyone else's) evolutions of existing methods. It reads almost like Schmidhuber or his students invented and solved everything from scratch, and nobody else has done shit since.
The guy clearly wants to be more included in the standard narrative, but being so self aggrandizing is doing him zero favors. If were capable of writing an honest, charitable account of how his work fits into a much larger field, it would be much easier to take him more seriously.
I mean it's self-promotional yes, but I read this as more of a blog post about advances specifically in his own group. For the Schmidhuberian take on the broader history of deep learning, this other one's the go-to article (though it's much longer): https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7828
Not everyone likes that article either, but it does at least extensively cite prior work, i.e. accounts for "how his contributions were (like everyone else's) evolutions of existing methods". In particular, sections 5.1–5.4 credit a large amount of work from the 1960s-80s that he considers foundational.
Really? The title itself says, "Deep Learning: Our Miraculous Year 1990-1991". It's an account of their work during that year. And he cites like a 100 articles there.
This kind of rhetoric was partly responsible for why he didn't receive the Turing award last year which he thoroughly deserved. We seem incapable of appreciating achievements of people who don't match our ideal of personality type.
There is a subset of people who does not like Schmidhuber. According to my personal observations, this subset overlaps quite a lot with people who tend to underestimate the importance of proper credit assignment.