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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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