Seems more than a nitpick to me. I find the essay interesting but this line raised some distrust in me. How can someone have these deep insights into Google's ML strategy and the evolution of the field and simultaneously think LSTMs were invented by Google in 2014?

sorry, I had a mind fart. I was thinking of seq2seq https://research.google/pubs/pub43155/

Pushing the fix now...

seq2seq was indeed a big deal.

You're lucky you could push a fix before Schmidhuber [1] noticed! ;)

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11279

>How can someone have these deep insights into Google's ML strategy and the evolution of the field and simultaneously think LSTMs were invented by Google in 2014?

It may not have been accidental; there's a deliberate movement among some people in the ML community to deny Jürgen Schmidhuber credit for inventing LSTMs and GANs.

That's something I hadn't heard about. Is there any particular reason for this?

It's become somewhat of a meme, where Schmidhuber seemingly tries to claim credit for nearly everything. I _think_ it's because he published ideas back in the 90s or so that weren't fully executable/realized at the time, and later people figured out how to actually flesh them out do it, and supposedly didn't cite him appropriately/enough. Often the ideas weren't exactly the same - but rather he claims they're derivatives of the concept he was going for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber#Credit...

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'll check out the link also.

Just to make it clear, you're hearing one side of the argument. There are also a lot of people who firmly believe that Schmidhuber was wrongfully deprived of recognition he deserved.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but the issue isn't as clear cut as your parent comment might have made it sound like.

Yes, thanks. Didn't intend to be one-sided. Not super versed in this subject so please everyone do your own research!