You're shifting the goalposts. The NeurIPS ethics review covers a lot more than physically harming people, and applies to things it makes no sense to apply it to.
-
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).
-
-
Well, we can talk about how it could be better — maybe certain papers should be exempt, or maybe the process should be different. I don’t know. But it sounds like you object even for the minority of papers that do raise significant or unique ethical questions.
-
It's literally in the 2020 NeurIPS author FAQ that "very theoretical" or "general enough" work doesn't require an impact statement.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.