The article does not mention the first and second authors of the research work, which is an atrocious thing to do.
The paper was authored by Sara Sabour, Nicholas Frosst, Geoffrey E Hinton in that order.
The paper was authored by Sara Sabour, Nicholas Frosst, Geoffrey E Hinton in that order.
The credit from the paper should go to all researchers of course, but Hinton is main driving force behind the research.
I see the society give unproportionally large credit to the so-called "leaders", because they pioneered certain "ideas".
That's wrong.
Histories bury too many talented individuals who are not recognized, because of some pioneers are frantically sucked all the attentions the society can give.
In professional research community, authors are listed because they are deemed a critical contributor to the work. Plain and simple.
I get why the focus is on him but they could have at least mentioned the others.
That guy has a clear passion for what he's doing, and seems immensely knowledgeable on the subject. My favourite speaker of the event by far.
I haven't heard yet from Ms. Sabour, but if Frosst is at all representative of the team (as I'm sure is at minimum the case), then it's a shame they aren't mentioned. From what I understand so far they work rather closely with Mr. Hinton on a regular basis.
Moreover, the last author is usually the most senior person or someone who funded the project; usually perceived as important or more important than the first author who "did all the work".
To be accurate, that person is considered the one who will claim the credit after the student graduates. Not that they are important to the work.
Most academic papers are mostly students work under a general instruction from the advisor.