[geofft]

I think it is a wild misunderstanding of how academic research works to say that the first demonstration of a concept is equal to all further work on a concept. It is like saying that the Human Genome Project isn't recent work because the structure of DNA was discovered in 1953.

[madmax96]

"arithmetic has existed for quite a while...what's the novelty Of Mr. Newton's integral? Mathematics research is irrelevant."

[__jal]

This is very common thinking - people seem to equate the first discussion of a concept with "discovery" with "the important stuff".

If that line of thought were consistent, it would credit Babbage, or maybe Turing, as the last computer scientist to do something useful.

[jascii]

I would say there is a difference between development that significantly change the way we look at things and adapting known principals to changing demands.. Where exactly that boundary lays is, I admit, murky at best.

[sdenton4]

And machine learning is still stuck in the sixties...

[mateo411]

It's stuck in the 1760s with the publication of Bayes Theorem.