Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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.
This doesn't seem like it's outside the realm that many other professions require. And there's already a laundry list of ethical whoopsies in CV and NLP that would warrant this change. If the paper is just faster gngd, then submitting 2 sentences to that fact is reasonable.
On the contrary, these requirements are extremely unusual among scientific conferences. (Just count what fraction of papers in past proceedings in all fields have sections on ethical implications.)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
