It's unacceptable to reject a paper on better car brakes because you don't like the social implications of drivers going faster.
-
I see. At this point, I don’t know if you’re arguing: Ethical review should only occur in context X and not Y, because X is sufficient and Y adds high cost for little benefit. or Ethical review should never occur, because people should do whatever they want. or something else
I’m saying that NeurIPS should stop requiring ethics sections and ethics reviews, and I haven’t heard a valid argument against it from you.
-
-
Oh. Ok. Because we want to reduce harm from research, and reviewing and rejecting papers is a way for the community to define and enforce standards. That’s why.
-
No, it’s inappropriate, particularly for the great majority of papers, which raise no significant or unique ethical questions (e.g., papers on speeding up SGD).
- 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.