| > You conveniently left out the plagiarism part regarding ReLUs: You are arguing 100% in bad faith. I specifically cited #9 because it is absurdly unreasonable to counter the entire gish galloping. Your counter argument is to cite #8 You are well aware that not citing an earlier paper with different implementation and results is not plagiarism. There is absolutely no evidence of plagiarism anywhere. If you drop the word "plagiarism" and replace it with "priority in invention" the allegations still don't stick, as I explained for #8. It is one thing to say that Schmidhuber did not get due credit, but quite another to call Hinton a plagiarist. Following up on your logic is absurd, because I can conveniently state that back prop is just the chain rule in differentiation by Newton and everyone else has plagiarized from him. And ReLU was plagiarized by Fukushima from neuroscience researchers. DNNs are an empirical engineering technique. Priority in proposing a technique is not remarkable. Most techniques like ReLU and back prop are straightforward to develop and understand. What matters is the absolute performance gain over SOTA techniques. I cannot claim priority over Fazlur Rahman if I had the idea to build skyscrapers using a tubular design. This is not theoretical physics. Building a sky scraper is an engineering problem. You have to actually build the sky scraper to claim victory. |