Pedro Domingos

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?

there has been substantial discussion about this for years now, for instance, see https://acm-fca.org/2018/03/29/negativeimpacts/ … … reality is review has always been about more than some pure notion of "science", communities should set standards for their scholarship

This is a controversial proposal, as you know. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

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.