Watch Desk posted an update
A commentary in The Transmitter argues that citation graphs can miss how foundational ideas travel from neuroscience into AI. Its example is the transformer: the piece traces a path from recurrent neural networks, influenced by ideas about biological neural circuits, to attention and today’s scalable architecture.
Why it mattersThe point is not that citation analysis is useless, but that it records direct references better than intellectual ancestry. An idea can shape a field and then become so familiar that researchers stop citing its origins.
Discuss: Should AI’s intellectual history be judged mainly by papers’ citations, or by tracing ideas and the people who carried them?
Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.
No replies yet. You can be first without making it weird.
Your turn
Pull up a chair.
Write first. We’ll sort the introductions when you submit.