I have such mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, such behavior comes across as very rude and a raw use of power/position. On the other hand, this is a field where people are constantly reinventing the wheel in parallel, and very few know the genealogy of their methods.
It's a field where certain *very* well-funded labs steamroll everyone in their path and people like me (not to mention people with smaller labs) readily get out the way of these labs decide to take on a problem. But regardless of your funding, relevant work should be acknowledged
As someone who once worked with Schmidhuber, I think "schmidhubering" is often (though not always) justified as a way of improving people's scholarship. A key aspect of science is contextualizing your work with respect to others'. Scholarship is essential:
togelius.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-di…
togelius.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-di…
This being said, you need to be mindful of power differentials when telling someone that they missed relevant prior work. And respectful. And just, you know, nice.
The worst form of "non-schmidhubering" is the passive aggressive form: someone reviews your paper negatively because it did not cite relevant research, but can't bring themselves to say what should be cited, because they don't want to mention their own work. I hate this behavior.
So please, when you see someone not doing their scholarship properly, tell them. Help them stand on your shoulders, and others' shoulders, whether you're a giant or a pygmy. But be nice about it, and don't misuse your position.
