Talk:Confabulation (neural networks)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self promotion[edit]

Could it be that both of these gentlemen, Thaler and Nielsen, are using the term "confabulation" in completely different ways?Periksson28 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are using them in a related way, but that is not the issue here - the article itself was usurped by Sthaler and rewritten to be a promotional piece about his own technology, with the original contribution relegated to an "also ran". The References is just a patent list. Look at Sthaler's own contribution history, as well as the history of the article itself; it reads like a press release, advertisement, or some other tool for self promotion. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Additionally, please see the page on Conflict of Interest, specifically on what constitutes a conflict of interest and the part about self-promotion. The text of the first paragraph was taken verbatim from his own company's web page on the topic, as was the patent list. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the public wants to know about confabulation in the context of AI, then this is the appropriate place for information about Thaler’s work, and the embarrassing truth is that the paper trail documenting his pioneer status in this area is thick and official, including not only U.S. and international patents, but also peer-reviewed papers and world press. (And, oh, by the way, fundamental, flag-planting patents like these are impossible to obtain, if academics have already established a presence in the area through papers or books). I wouldn’t put much credence in accusations regarding the “Sthaler” contribution, since we don’t know who this really is. Furthermore, there are many advocates out there willing to copy and paste web site material. I’m sorry to say that the documentation trail is authentic and adequate enough to effectively reduce the original contribution to an “also ran” status. The real crime here is the vandalism repeatedly taking place as the “Thaler” contribution is repeatedly eradicated by what appear to be minions of a well financed individual. At least the Thaler camp is ethical in preserving the RHN portion for the public to freely contrast and compare (that’s the fairness and access to information that Wikipedia is striving for). It also takes care to arrange information in accurate chronological/historical order. …BTW, I am not Sthaler and I’m sorry that people like Mr. Long John desire to obliterate the record. [User:aravind.g1001] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind.g1001 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the username Sthaler could belong to anyone, if it was not him then the contribution made by the individual with that username falls under Wikipedia:Plagiarism since it was taken verbatim from Stephen Thaler's own website without citation. Additionally, your conspiracy theory accusations are unevidenced and not germane to the discussion. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look who is talking about Plagiarism !!! [user talk:aravind.g1001] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind.g1001 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about plagiarism - are you suggesting something about me? LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original contribution totally denies and negates Thaler's pioneering work, effectively making it a grand confabulation. If it sounds like a press release, it's because of the immense, intrinsic power of the theory and the resulting technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your admiration of Thaler's work is not germane to the discussion. Sthaler is using this page for the purposes of self promotion. Again, Wikipedia is not a soap box. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, RHN has used this page for his self-promotion Wikipedia is not a soap box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see evidence of Robert Hecht-Nielsen modifying this article? Someone with the user name Sthaler modified this article, and it is fairly obvious who that is. The original author of this page, and of the segment describing Hecht-Nielsen's user of the word "confabulation" in a neural networking context is user Imersion, who's comment history spans a broad range of topics, from computation to psychology to various topics in biology and colloquialisms. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Long John, or whoever you may be (you have many aliases even on Wikipedia) you have made many accusations without substantive proof. Nevertheless, all of the content contributed to this article are backed by primary, secondary, and even tertiary sources, patent offices around the world, university professors who have peer-reviewed many of the articles referenced, respected newspapers and professional journals, the U.S. government, and even total strangers. Wikipedia staff, including its founder, have routinely tidied this article and have not once offered any kind of objection to it. What's your problem? All references check out and there have been several layers of additional contributions since "Sthaler." Since you don't like the truth, your intent is to once again vandalize this site like a frustrated two year old, destroying it all because of your all too obvious allegiance to RHN. My hope is that Wikipedia carefully examines this article, makes the necessary modifications (if any)to suit its guidelines, and intelligently moves on, maintaining its balance. If, by chance, you convince Wikipedia to obliterate it, there's something really, really rotten in Denmark! BTW, Thaler does not need to soapbox here. Numerous authors, reporters, university professors have already done that for him over the last decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Periksson28 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you falsely allege that I am a sock puppet, without evidence. Next, you disregard the evidence provided for my assertions, and all common sense besides. You then make the mistake of thinking that simply a list of patents constitutes a reference section. You follow that with the lie that the founders of Wikipedia have modified this article, which is easily shown to be false by viewing the revision history of the article (neither Jimmy Wales nor Larry Sanger have modified this article). You then allege that I have some kind of "allegiance" to Hecht-Nielsen, when my stated purpose here is to remove the parts which were posted by Thaler himself in a blatant Conflict of Interest and advertising post - the additional posts after the fact do not change how that content was initially added, nor did they remove the advertising spin of that content. Your assertions regarding Thaler's needs or lack thereof regarding "soapboxing" is not germane to the discussion.
Please note that it was an administrator, Chzz, that listed the article for deletion, not myself. Additionally, he made a note in user Sthaler's talk page regarding Conflict of Interest edits. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking to my guns on all points. If you all have an agenda, there's nothing I can do to stop it. Nevertheless, if you take the time to actually look, there are more than patents listed among the numerous references (as if patents weren't immensely important). There are both primary and secondary references listed, and so-called "notability" requirements have been met. To delete this page without some form of compromise is, well, Philistine. To discount it based upon your unproven suspicions is Draconian. The original article giving RHN preferential treatment failed all the official Wikipedia tests and bypassed historical fact. Nevertheless, for some strange reason, it persisted until it was balanced out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.140.57 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to persist in being irrational despite the lack of evidence for your assertions? If there are any "agendas" here, it seems to be Wikipedia standards requirements versus your fanboy-ism. As noted on the discussion page for AfD, sources that are independent of the subject need to provide significant coverage. Simply having secondary sources isn't enough. This is why that discussion is occurring; it does not appear to meet notability requirements, despite your assertions to the contrary.
My "suspicions" have nothing to do with the subject's notability. As previously stated, if it is not CoI, then it is plagiarism. The original article was a poor, un-sourced stub on its own, and in need of either improvement or deletion. However, usurping the article, as Thaler (or someone making every attempt to appear as Thaler) did, is neither an improvement, nor "balanced".
I'm still curious where you got the idea that the Wikipedia founders were in any way involved with this article, despite the fact that the article's change history have no records of them. Are you "sticking to this gun" as well? LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Periksson28, as noted in the AfD discussion page by Rankiri, "The Machine That Invents" is not about confabulation, but about Thaler himself - the article does not cover the topic significantly. Similarly with "Demonstration of Self-Training Autonomous Neural Networks in Space Vehicle Docking Simulations", the coverage in the paper actually given to confabulation is trivial. Simply mentioning the term does not constitute significant coverage. LongJohnPlatinum (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, LongJohnPlatinum, "The Machine That Invents" is about just that, the machine that invents. It is amply pointed out that false memories are at the core of this device's function. I would have to save that the person the article is most about is Mr. Miller, the ballet dancing Green Beret. Besides, the public wants to know the personalities behind significant concepts like this (i.e., who were those guys at Kitty Hawk?)Periksson28 (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article written by NASA's Flight Robotics Lab, "Demonstration of Self-Training Autonomous Neural Networks in Space Vehicle Docking Simulations, confabulation is at the core of the space vehicle's control system, I would hardly call that a "trivial mention." Periksson28 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confabulation (neural networks). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confabulation_(neural_networks)&oldid=1201096221"