False! I wrote academic book in 2001 & journal article 1998 that foreshadowed all current issues & supplied significant empirical evidence that deep learning researchers still haven’t addressed; reraised in arXiv+NIPS. @LakeBrenden has replicated the work. Field has not engaged.https://twitter.com/Zergylord/status/1066344681330671616 …
-
The 1998 and 2001 pieces addressed the psych community (which had been engaged for decades). Your recent arXiv paper has over 100 citations -- it engaged the community, but as it was position/research paper its hard for that engagement to take the form of followup work.
Ps IMHO your tweet/this thread distills an unhealthy not-invented-here attitude that is not serving ML well (as @IntuitMachine is tweeting in another thread). ML/AI should be looking to psychology etc for clues, not complaining about people publishing in wrong set of journals
-
-
I understand the sentiment. But the 1998 articles in particular are responses to very specifics pieces of work from decades ago. They'd have to be up to speed on the surrounding debate to get much out of them apart from `extrapolation is easier with logic than with statistics'
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.