Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Ethical considerations have been a key factor in evaluating papers since at least Tuskegee. This isn’t an affront in the slightest.
NeurIPS is an outlier among conferences in requiring ethics sections and ethics reviews of all papers. Maybe we should consider whether we're doing something stupid.
Isn’t “Maybe we should consider whether we’re doing something stupid” the whole point of ethics sections?
This is the best possible response.
Yes, we are doing something stupid. We are allowing unethical (AKA "actively harmful") research to be produced and disseminated, *because* most outlets do not require ethics sections and ethics reviews.
What was your point again? Oh... 
How is it harmful to find the optimal convergence rate in an optimizer?
Most journals publishing human subjects research require statements that the research underwent ethical review and consider ethics in their peer review process. This isn’t unusual.
Yes. We looked at other fields for models on how to handle impact statements, ethics reviews, and funding disclosures. I'm not sure what the argument would be for holding ML to a different standard. (And, ICLR are following our lead - they will have an ethics committee in 2021)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
