It's ridiculous to say that (for example) every paper about speeding up gradient descent needs to have a discussion of the social implications of faster gradient descent. But that's what NeurIPS currently does. Dear NeurIPS Board, please end this insanity.
AFAIK only ML (specifically, only this conference) require a societal impact statement. One could easily argue that, e.g., databases have a far greater impact on society than ML algorithms. It seems related to trends in the ML community rather than to actual harms.
-
-
We really going back to
@ylecun's favorite non sequitur of an argument? It's silly to maintain some special categorical distinction between data and algorithms, especially in the era of machine learning when the algorithms are written by the datahttps://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1203211859366576128 … -
How is this a non sequitur?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Sure we could argue that Dbs have negative impact. But that’s what the statement is for. To make sure the authors have considered all these factors and to increase its importance when we work. Seehttps://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics
-
I'm not sure I understand: How is the ACM Code of Ethics related to the requirement of the Neurips Societal Impact Statement?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.