• casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah, even if he is advising or contributing, the way he put it sounds very disingenuous like he’s trying to inflate the number for his argument. Which MIGHT mean there likely was not many with immediately recognizable significance in that time (don’t yell at me, I have not taken the time to verify this).

    Either way, the way he responded comes across as very “I’m published, you’re not, neener neener!” which is not a good look for anyone with a doctorates.

    Also, genuine question, how significant was the contribution of LeNet-5 to the field of deep learning vs Neocognitron?

    • pflanzenregal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      He could’ve just said “I have a turing award, you don’t” if he wanted to show off.

      He is also called one of the godfathers of deep learning, so I’d say his contributions are very significant.

    • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      He is not first named on all of them, which means he likely advised masters and PhD/post docs on their work. It’s not uncommon.

      This many papers is uncommon, but how it happened is not out of the norm.

      • casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Right, I didn’t mean to imply that the practice was uncommon, just that using it as a defense of ego so readily was eyebrow-raising. I’m no academic, but I feel like I’d lose respect for my advisor had they used the paper I worked hard on as a way to boost numbers used as personal defense in some petty squabble in a public forum.