Are you deliberately trying to misconstrue what I say, or is it involuntary?
-
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.
For those few, ethical judgments are best left to the readers, not pre-empted by the PC.
-
-
So your position is: There is no ML paper too unethical to publish? Let’s try an example. Suppose I use ML to predict which people are gay, and I include tables that disclose these predictions for people in countries where homosexual behavior is punishable by death.
-
Is that the least contrived example you can come up with? How many papers like that have you seen? Is that seriously an argument for requiring broader impact sections and ethics reviews for NeurIPS papers? Shall we talk about little green men from Mars, in case they're relevant?
- 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.