[P-NP]

I can see some angry comments here, but so far I have not seen any facts that refute his claims. Once I spent a long time reviewing a related paper on Hacker News, and I think he is right about disputes B1, B2, B5, H2, H4, H5. I'd have to study the others more closely:

B: Priority disputes with Dr. Bengio (original date v Bengio's date): B1: Generative adversarial networks or GANs (1990 v 2014) B2: Vanishing gradient problem (1991 v 1994) B3: Metalearning (1987 v 1991) B4: Learning soft attention (1991-93 v 2014) for Transformers etc. B5: Gated recurrent units (2000 v 2014) B6: Auto-regressive neural nets for density estimation (1995 v 1999) B7: Time scale hierarchy in neural nets (1991 v 1995)

H: Priority disputes with Dr. Hinton (original date v Hinton's date): H1: Unsupervised/self-supervised pre-training for deep learning (1991 v 2006) H2: Distilling one neural net into another neural net (1991 v 2015) H3: Learning sequential attention with neural nets (1990 v 2010) H4: NNs program NNs: fast weight programmers (1991 v 2016) and linear Transformers H5: Speech recognition through deep learning (2007 v 2012) H6: Biologically plausible forward-only deep learning (1989, 1990, 2021 v 2022)

L: Priority disputes with Dr. LeCun (original date v LeCun's date): L1: Differentiable architectures / intrinsic motivation (1990 v 2022) L2: Multiple levels of abstraction and time scales (1990-91 v 2022) L3: Informative yet predictable representations (1997 v 2022) L4: Learning to act largely by observation (2015 v 2022)

[P-NP]

In the past few hours I have had more time to look at the entire piece and download some of the referenced papers. So far I haven't found any claim that's factually inaccurate.

I think there is a reason why the ACM Turing awardees have never tried to defend themselves by presenting facts to the contrary: because they can't.

This might get interesting:

> The "Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM"[ACM23] mentions that ACM "retains the right to revoke an Honor previously granted if ACM determines that it is in the best interests of the field to do so." So I ask ACM to evaluate the presented evidence and decide about further actions.