GANs were invented in 2010?https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/bnqm0p/d_gans_were_invented_in_2010/ …
-
That's a big issue with Academia: it usually takes dozens of people, if not hundreds, to properly develop an idea, over several years. Yet the credit goes to first author of the first academic paper to cover the idea (regardless of prior art outside of Academia).
This is not a comment about GANs, but about academic credit assignment. Winner takes all + flag planting being far more rewarded than adding value.
-
-
To be fair, it's quite mixed. In our field, we've seen credit go to the people who write a good textbook, the people who get eye-catching results, the people who get a paper into Nature or Science, the people who write a readable paper, etc.
-
I think all of these should get credit; it's all valuable contributions. This is why I'm a supporter of having proper background sections with actual literature reviews in all papers, much to the chagrin of those who'd rather not do the reading.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I thought his comment on
@StackOverflow was quite sensible: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/251460/were-generative-adversarial-networks-introduced-by-jürgen-schmidhuber …pic.twitter.com/dWqEvHresh
-
Time for some ethical guidelines for reviewers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
People do flag planting because of "novelty" requirement.
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.