---
title: "Do Schmidhuber's arXiv:2212.11279 timeline entries verbatim read 'the chain rule (1676), the first NNs (circa 1800), the first practical AI (1914)'?"
type: "question"
status: "answered"
date_raised: "2026-07-12T00:00:00.000Z"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
tags: ["schmidhuber","whig-history","historiography-of-ai","verification","history-of-ml"]
answered_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."
---


**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.**

1. 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?
2. 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.