Agreed; and we have the introduction, related work and conclusion sections - in most papers.
Requiring every paper at a conference like NeurIPS to include a discussion of its potential broad impacts is wasteful, because the impacts are essentially the same for whole classes of papers. Time to end this ill-conceived experiment.
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I think the point was to force authors to consider the impacts of their work -- to go through the exercise. Not sure how to gauge its usefulness though. Only the overhead was directly observable!
-
A program committee that forces authors to add questionable sections to their papers is overstepping the bounds.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
They are missing the point of ethics and are moving on to enforcement. We moved from who should self driving car save to all white researchers are making bad models. It's ridiculous and detrimental. Ethics is "don't build a nuke", not stop working on understanding nuclear fusion
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.