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?

Hi Pedro, I helped create the NeurIPS ethical review process. Looks like there's a healthy discussion going on here already, but let me know if I can answer any specific questions. Up front, I should say that the ethical reviewers gave feedback; they did not accept/reject papers.

Hi Raia, my point is that papers are being rejected based on this "ethical review", and I object to that. The papers' ethics should be evaluated by the readers, not pre-emptively by what is effectively a censorship board.

My point is that papers are being rejected based on this “scientific review”, and I object to that. The papers’ scientific merits should be evaluated by the readers, not pre-emptively by what is effectively a censorship board.

The purpose of a program committee is to save readers time by filtering out papers that are not worth their time, not to filter them out based on ideology. I welcome the first and reject the second, and I hope you do as well.

I'm so genuinely taken aback by the confusion between "harm" and "ideology"? Is it a political position to vet a car for functioning breaks as not to kill people?

It's unacceptable to reject a paper on better car brakes because you don't like the social implications of drivers going faster.

Hm, don't think you quite understood my analogy. Let me rephrase: What is political about not doing research that, as part of its methodology, makes ppl sick or puts their lives at risk, without their consent? Safety & harm can be separate from ideology. Esp when data is involved