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.
-
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.
-
-
I was curious after seeing your post whether there was anything reported about this experiment. This is the only thing I found: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.13032.pdf … Seems people didn't find it too burdensome, but opinions about the requirement were fairly evenly split.
-
In their opening remarks, the program chairs admitted that authors found them burdensome. In any case, if you multiply the time spent by the number of submissions, it's not a trivial amount.
- 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.