Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Hello Pedro, I was an AC for NeurIPS. A purely theoretical paper on gradient descent could simply mention "no ethical concerns envisioned", but a GAN paper on a face dataset needed the authors to reflect on ethics. No censorship was involved, only awareness of one's impact.
No, not every GAN paper on a face dataset needs a section on ethics - at all. That's exactly part of what's wrong here. And saying some papers weren't rejected on "ethical" grounds doesn't address the ones that were (or will be).
They do. Who is on the pictures and did they consent? Who owns and licenses the data? Are the authors claiming generality but there are biases? Why did you work on faces specifically? Just ASK yourself these questions when you write the paper. You can still publish it.
I see few biologists complaining they are being censored because they are asked to assert their model animals where treated according to ethical guidelines. Or medical researchers! This is not the whole point here, but AI researchers shoukd of course be held to similar standards.
Your phrasing is misleading. A tiny minority (4 apparently?) were rejected after very long deliberation, and would probably have been flagged by the community later. Hence: almost all were not rejected on ethical grounds.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
