News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The most cited deep learning papers by pizza on Wednesday February 15, 2017 @10:42PM (#13657624)
http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/deep-learning-conspiracy.htm... oh Juergen

> Machine learning is the science of credit assignment. The machine learning community itself profits from proper credit assignment to its members. The inventor of an important method should get credit for inventing it. She may not always be the one who popularizes it. Then the popularizer should get credit for popularizing it (but not for inventing it). Relatively young research areas such as machine learning should adopt the honor code of mature fields such as mathematics: if you have a new theorem, but use a proof technique similar to somebody else's, you must make this very clear. If you "re-invent" something that was already known, and only later become aware of this, you must at least make it clear later.

Re:The most cited deep learning papers by curuinor on Thursday February 16, 2017 @02:49AM (#13658335)
I mean, there was a nice 15 or so year period between the "new" post-Minsky-and-Papert Perceptron book connectionism and the current "new new" connectionism where neural nets were a definite backwater. Most of the PIs doing neural nets dealt with it by being sad but Schmidhuber seems to have dealt with it by doubling down on the weirdness.
Re:The most cited deep learning papers by latently on Thursday February 16, 2017 @12:08PM (#13661566)
Just because it wasn't wildly popular doesn't mean there was a gap of any sorts. I agree with Schmidhuber. http://grey.colorado.edu/emergent