Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
It's alarming that NeurIPS papers are being rejected based on "ethics reviews". How do we guard against ideological biases in such reviews? Since when are scientific conferences in the business of policing the perceived ethics of technical papers?
Sadly, we seem to be having a bit of a problem on this thread with (self-appointed) ethicists who demand that computer scientists learn (their) ethics, while feeling no need to learn anything about computer science before opining about it.
ACL were happy to publish techniques for automatically unveiling Chinese dissidents despite ethical objections during review.
Surely they were good for many other things besides. If you don't publish research that can have bad applications, you don't publish anything.
Whats a concrete ideological bias you are mentioning and why is it alarming? AI tech is affecting a lot of people these days (many of them in a negative way). Its perhaps time to consider the ethical implications of our tech?
For example, suppressing research because it's supposedly potentially harmful to some group of people, no matter how far-fetched, as has already been illustrated on this thread (ban classifiers that predict sex because they're transphobic - I'm not kidding).
Only four papers out of thousands were rejected due to ethical reviews. I'd like to see what they were, but for all we know they may not be in what any of us would consider a gray area.
It's a slippery slope.
There’s room for a little nuance. Few would subscribe to “publish anything, no matter the potential for harm”. Similarly, few would subscribe to “do not publish anything if it has any potential for harm”. The task then is to justify why your middle ground is better than another.
US funding agencies require that procedures involving humans or animals be approved by a board that reviews their ethics. In ML, the stakes are more nebulous, but they are also potentially much higher. Why wouldn't we have some kind of ethical review process?
But that's for funding decisions, which is a very different matter. Research papers are speech, and should not be subject to censorship.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
