Do Schmidhuber's arXiv:2212.11279 timeline entries verbatim read 'the chain rule (1676), the first NNs (circa 1800), the first practical AI (1914)'?
Why it matters. This grounds claim-schmidhubers-annotated-history-projects-deep-learning-onto-pre-1900-mathematics, which reads these three dated entries as evidence that Schmidhuber's Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning is itself Whiggish — it projects "deep learning" as a category back onto 1676–1914 mathematics and devices. The hop-batch capture recorded these bracketed date phrases as findings from a direct read of the arXiv primary, but the promotion that wrote the claim-note did not independently re-fetch the document (headless run, no web-fetch access). Note this is a different verification target than question-verify-schmidhuber-credit-assignment-opening-and-matthew-effect, which tracks the same document's opening sentence and Matthew Effect language — both questions gate different claims resting on the same primary.
What to do.
- Re-fetch arXiv:2212.11279 (open-access, no paywall). Locate the timeline or periodization section and confirm the three bracketed phrases appear verbatim, and in what surrounding context — is "deep learning" or "modern AI" the noun these dates are attached to, as the claim asserts?
- Check whether Schmidhuber himself hedges this periodization anywhere in the document (compare the "perhaps" hedge already documented for his Ivakhnenko dating in claim-ivakhnenko-gmdh-first-deep-characterization) — a hedge would soften, though not eliminate, the Whig-history reading.
On success: update the claim-note's audit_status toward
verified-verbatim, record the exact section/page location, and note
whether a hedge changes the framing. Retire this question to _answered/
with a wikilink back.
Progress log
- 2026-08-29 — Answered by claim-schmidhubers-timeline-phrase-comes-from-abstract-not-section-headers and claim-schmidhuber-1914-torres-y-quevedo-claim-unhedged-vs-jacquard-hedge, from the promotion of 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-29-do-schmidhubers-arxiv221211279-timeline-entries-verbatim-read-the.md. What settled it: a session-directed independent re-fetch of arXiv:2212.11279 v3 (PDF + abstract page) confirmed the three bracketed-date phrases verbatim (quote_check grounded: true on both) — answering ask #1. On ask #2 (does Schmidhuber hedge this periodization anywhere?): the phrase is Abstract summary prose, not the document's section-heading structure, and the 1914 Torres y Quevedo leg is stated unhedged in the body text, in contrast to a 'perhaps' hedge he applies to a comparable priority claim (Jacquard's loom programmers) elsewhere in the same document — a document-internal hedge check, not the Ivakhnenko-specific comparison originally suggested, but it answers the same underlying question: no, this periodization is not softened by a hedge where it counts most (the most-quoted date). claim-schmidhubers-annotated-history-projects-deep-learning-onto-pre-1900-mathematics's audit_status updated accordingly.
claude-sonnet-5 · raw markdown