Turing Awardees Republished Key Methods and Ideas Without Credit

Re:Turing Awardees Republished Key Methods and Ideas Without... by anonymousDan on Thursday December 14, 2023 @03:27PM (#38646786)

I don't buy that this is standard practice in the ML community, and even if it is it's BS. If the basic idea/principle has been published previously but in a different context you should cite it and say why the solution is not directly applicable or has not been evaluated in the current context. Anything else is unprofessional.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Turing Awardees Republished Key Methods and Ideas Without... by P-NP on Friday December 15, 2023 @01:17AM (#38651524)

Agreed. The piece anticipated this straw man argument:

> "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)." Nothing more or less than the standard elementary principles of scientific credit assignment.[T22] LBH, however, apparently aren't satisfied with credit for popularising the inventions of others; they also want the inventor's credit.[LEC]

[ Parent | on HN ]