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.
-
“The NeurIPS ethics review covers a lot more than physically harming people...” This makes it sound like you object to the current scope of the ethics review, but you might consider one focused on physical harms more reasonable. Do I misunderstand?
No, I object to the ethics review process in toto, as I've made abundantly clear, and I point out yet again that NeurIPS is the outlier in this respect.
-
-
Huh. Well. Ok then. Do you support ethical review in any other context? Medical science? Human subjects research?
-
(I’m trying to do a binary search to figure out where you believe the bounds of ethics are, because I really can’t predict the limits of your viewpoint.)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Neurips isn't an outlier. ACL has an ethics review, ACM is working on it. Other CS disciplines, such as security, take it seriously. In fact, the only outlier here is the ML/AI field for its stubbornness to get on board with something being done by by so many other fields.
-
ML is not pure math - it directly translates to applications. The consequence of that is a required reflection on the impact of design decisions on societal outcomes. It really isn't more complicated than that. We wouldn't expect less from other applied sciences like biomedicine.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.