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 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.
-
-
Aha... I should use a similar argument to get out of unnecessary meetings now. Thanks!
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.