Hacker News Reader

He is usually insufferable (and misleading) when he talks about AI innovation priorities. This article is different, though. It really does seem like Lilienfeld invented the transistor first and should be given credit for that. It also really does look like the official inventors knew that and were somewhat dishonest.

Funny, btw, that nobody here has mentioned that Lilienfeld also invented the electrolytic capacitor.

View on HN

But: it's obvious why he wrote the article. It is to bolster his own claims, not to give Lilienfeld his due.

How would you distinguish the article from an honest write up about transistors? That is, you know about his crusade in ML, but if you didn't, how would you decide that this article is written in bad faith or not?

I agree that context matters, and I had the same thought as you. But does that mean that anything he writes on the topic of "who was first" is inherently tainted?

Because I read the article and checked the citations. It's a dead giveaway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com