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.
-
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?
-
-
It’s not that contrived. There have been papers published on systems to predict sexual preference from images. My example is only a small step from there.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Pedro. This is obviously an issue you feel strongly about. But the tone you are taking here is not appropriate for a public discussion between respected colleagues on an issue of great social importance. May I ask that we conduct the discussion in a manner that reflects this?
-
My tone is entirely appropriate. Several people's is far from it. How about focusing on those?
- 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.