[blueyes]

Wow, Gary Marcus just Schmidhubered Yann LeCun.

The ironic thing of course is that Yann has not been at the forefront of AI for many many years (and Gary, of course, never has). Facebook's research has failed to rival Google Brain, DeepMind, OpenAI, and groups at top universities.

So to the extent that Yann is copying Gary's opinions, it's because they both converge at a point far behind the leaders in the field. Yann should be much more concerned than Gary about that.

[mindcrime]

So to the extent that Yann is copying Gary's opinions, it's because they both converge at a point far behind the leaders in the field.

Behind? Why do you say so? If anything, they may both (now) be a bit ahead of the curve. AFAICT, while the idea of neuro-symbolic integration is pretty old (Ron Sun, among others, was talking about it ages ago), the idea is still far from widely pursued by the mainstream thread of AI research.

In either case, it's interesting to finally start to see more weight accumulating behind this particular arrow. But I've long been on record as advocating that neuro-symbolic integration is a critical area of research for AI, so I'm a bit biased.

[mirekrusin]

Also having "an idea" expressed as one or two sentences is something different than implementing, trying out and writing paper about "an idea".

[zone411]

Schmidhuber Schmidhubered LeCun himself :) https://openreview.net/forum?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf&noteId=GsxarV_Jy...

[turkeygizzard]

Sorry, could you explain Schmidhubering as a verb? I know who Schmidhuber is, but not familiar enough to understand this. Is it that Schmidhuber makes claims that LeCun's and others' ideas are derivative of his own?

[minihat]

Schmidhuber is a prolific flag-planter who is notorious for publicly raising a stink when he deems he should've been cited, but wasn't. It's happened enough that it's now a meme in the ML community.

[trobertson]

It's important to mention that Schmidhuber is usually correct, in that his lab has been decades ahead in both theory and proofs-of-concept. The reason his lab is so under-cited is that his lab made these advances before the hardware to practically do it was available. Now that the techniques can be run, it's the people running them that tend to get all the credit for being "first".

[belval]

> mention that Schmidhuber is usually correct

You present this statement as fact when it is still highly debated. A lot of researchers will claim a popular new approach is a reformulation of experiments they did X years ago. It's usually best to see it as a spectrum where some idea are on the same axis, where one end is "totally different" and the other is "renamed approached".