• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Wirakumon Says AI History Ignores Pre-1990s Advances

    Social media comment credits Schmidhuber and earlier researchers alongside recent engineering work.

    WI
    1 Source, 656d ago, first seen 656d ago

    TLDR

    A post from user Wirakumon asserts that narratives around deep learning and artificial intelligence overlook substantial contributions made more than three decades ago. It acknowledges engineering progress achieved in the most recent ten years while pointing to foundational work by individuals such as SchmidhuberAI. The message claims no proof exists that every author in the field has properly accounted for those earlier efforts, though the supplied text cuts off mid-sentence. No additional context or replies are included in the evidence.

    Combined views

    1.9K

    1 Source, first seen 656d ago

    Combined views

    1.9K

    1 Source, first seen 656d ago

    7 likes
    7 likes
    1 comments
    1 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    1 comments
    1 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    1 Source

    @WirakumonPeople are writing the history of DL and AI wrong. While there is huge merit in the engineering advances that were made in the past 10 years, there is also huge merit in the fundamental advances that were made more than 30 years ago by people like @SchmidhuberAI. There is no way to prove that at least one author in the GANs paper read Schmidhuber's paper but given the similarities it's difficult to believe that that was not the case. In the unlikely case in which they didn't read the original paper, the least they could do is to acknowledge it after learning of its existence, but that didn't happen either. And this is not the only example of this situation. It's truly shameful!

    1 Source

    @WirakumonPeople are writing the history of DL and AI wrong. While there is huge merit in the engineering advances that were made in the past 10 years, there is also huge merit in the fundamental advances that were made more than 30 years ago by people like @SchmidhuberAI. There is no way to prove that at least one author in the GANs paper read Schmidhuber's paper but given the similarities it's difficult to believe that that was not the case. In the unlikely case in which they didn't read the original paper, the least they could do is to acknowledge it after learning of its existence, but that didn't happen either. And this is not the only example of this situation. It's truly shameful!