OTOH if this had the effect of reducing the flow of papers about speeding up gradient descent...
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.
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Social program for science.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Yes you can, and Pedro should know it full well. I think this is getting a bit awkward.
- Näytä vastaukset
-
-
-
But, how is that different from NSF proposal’s requirement addressing broader impact of the proposed research? Plus reducing compute per training seems a good thing anyway (but of course allowing more training per paper before deadline)..
-
The NSF broader impact requirement is also a bad idea. A research community as a whole should think about the broader impacts of its research, but requiring it on every grant is overkill, let alone in every paper.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
How does spending some time to reflect on possible repercussions rise to the level of insanity?
-
I'm certainly not a NeurIps-level researcher, but I'm constantly surprised by my own experiments, so I assume that the second and third-order social effects are effectively unknowable to me.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Faster Gradient Descent = less time off the screen = less walking to the kitchen, small talks with colleagues, and socialization in general. So, faster gradient descent can lead to loneliness.
-
There you go :)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.