---
title: "Schmidhuber's 'Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning' dates the field's origin to the 1676 chain rule and circa-1800 neural nets — reading the present category back onto the deep past"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
audit_status: "capture-verified — the hop-batch worker read the arXiv primary directly and recorded exact bracketed date phrases from its own timeline; independent queen/promotion-time re-check was blocked in this headless run (no web-fetch access). A separate, differently-scoped question already tracks re-verification of this same document's opening sentence; this claim's specific dated phrases are routed at [[question-verify-schmidhuber-annotated-history-1676-1800-1914-dates]]. | RE-CONFIRMED 2026-08-29 (promotion of 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-29-do-schmidhubers-arxiv221211279-timeline-entries-verbatim-read-the.md): a session-directed independent re-fetch of arXiv:2212.11279 v3 (PDF + abstract page) confirmed the bracketed-date phrase verbatim via quote_check (grounded: true on both fetches). Two further findings, spun out as their own atomic notes rather than duplicating this one: the phrase lives in the Abstract's summary sentence, not as parallel section-heading text ([[claim-schmidhubers-timeline-phrase-comes-from-abstract-not-section-headers]]); and the 1914 Torres y Quevedo leg of the claim is stated unhedged, unlike a 'perhaps' hedge Schmidhuber applies to a comparable priority claim (Jacquard's loom programmers) elsewhere in the same document ([[claim-schmidhuber-1914-torres-y-quevedo-claim-unhedged-vs-jacquard-hedge]]). [[question-verify-schmidhuber-annotated-history-1676-1800-1914-dates]] marked answered on this basis."
source_url: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11279"
source_title: "Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning"
source_author: "Jürgen Schmidhuber"
source_date: "2022"
source_venue: "'Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning', arXiv:2212.11279"
source_quote: "the chain rule (1676), the first NNs (circa 1800), the first practical AI (1914)"
source_tier: 1
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-11-hop-whig-history-of-ai.md, 2026-07-12 (headless)"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-07-11-hop-whig-history-of-ai.md"
date_created: "2026-07-12T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["whig-history","historiography-of-ai","presentism","schmidhuber","credit-assignment","backpropagation","history-of-ml"]
verified_verbatim: "2026-08-07 — source_quote matched verbatim (normalized) against a direct fetch of source_url by seek_verify (no model involved)"
seek_code_commit: "89bc9f4"
---


[[entity-juergen-schmidhuber|Jürgen Schmidhuber]]'s *Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning*
(arXiv:2212.11279) is the vault's most-cited single source for correcting
misattributed credit in [[entity-backpropagation|backpropagation]]'s genealogy
([[claim-credit-assignment-spans-sociology-and-backprop]],
[[claim-ivakhnenko-gmdh-first-deep-characterization]],
[[claim-dreyfus-1973-lineage-link-uncorroborated]]). The same document is
itself an instance of the historiographical fallacy it fights. Its timeline
periodizes "modern AI and deep learning" back to "the chain rule (1676), the
first NNs (circa 1800), the first practical AI (1914)" — projecting a
2010s-vintage category, "deep learning," onto seventeenth-, nineteenth-, and
early-twentieth-century mathematics and devices that were not built, framed,
or understood by their creators as steps toward that category. This is
Whig history in Butterfield's exact sense
([[claim-butterfield-1931-coined-whig-history-as-present-referenced-past]]):
studying the mathematical past with reference to a present label.

The self-referential twist is the note's value. Schmidhuber's project runs the
field's most sustained *anti*-Whig campaign at the level of individual
credit — insisting Linnainmaa, Ivakhnenko, and others get named rather than
folded into famous successors — while being simultaneously Whiggish at the
level of periodization, reading a unified "deep learning" lineage into work
that long predates the concept. Correcting *who* gets credit and correcting
*whether the category applies at all* are different axes, and this document
does the first rigorously while doing the second casually. See
[[moc-backpropagation-origins]].

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> This is the sharpest case in the whole cluster because it isn't a story
> about someone else's history-writing — it's the vault's own most-trusted
> source for AI history, caught by the same standard it applies to everyone
> it corrects. I don't read this as debunking Schmidhuber's credit work,
> which rests on much stronger footing elsewhere in the vault; I read it as
> evidence that anti-Whig vigilance about *credit* and anti-Whig vigilance
> about *category* are separate disciplines, and even a careful historian
> can hold one without the other. — Seek