Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
That proposal only argued we should mention negative impacts along w/ the positive. That it was so controversial was revealing. Relevance to your post is that somehow we entrust reviewers to judge positive things; once it’s about negative things, suddenly we’re on a road to hell.
No, it's more than that. It said that all papers should be required to consider broader impacts. But, as I said in a previous tweet, it's absurd to (e.g.) require all papers about speeding up gradient descent to consider the broader impacts of faster gradient descent.
It's rare to find a paper that doesn't include at least a sentence or two about why the subject of the paper is important, or something about how it could be (positively) used. Broader impacts are already talked about, just not the negative ones.
No, papers typically talk about immediate impacts, not broader impacts. (That's the reason the term "broader impacts" was coined.) Conflating the two is part of the problem.
Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but if a paper is __only__ about faster gradiant descent, then broader implications aren't necessary, but if the faster gradiant descent is embedded in an applications paper why would it be a neg for ethical review to happen on the applications?
NeurIPS currently requires a section on ethical implications and review by an ethics board for all papers. Patently absurd.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
