Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
It's alarming that NeurIPS papers are being rejected based on "ethics reviews". How do we guard against ideological biases in such reviews? Since when are scientific conferences in the business of policing the perceived ethics of technical papers?
Dear NeurIPS Board (cc'ing @MarcRanzato and @hugo_larochelle), may I suggest doing an anonymous poll of NeurIPS authors to see how many agree with requiring broader impact sections and ethics-board reviews of NeurIPS papers? That would bring some clarity to this issue.
Perhaps this is worth doing, but are ethical questions best resolved by voting? History suggests not
I agree that majority is not the way to go with ethical questions (left to US electorate--rather than SCOTUS--segregation would no doubt have persisted much longer). But I also worry at the increasing tendency of letting the squeakiest wheel get the oil..
Forget about vote, NeurIPS board is biased, remember when they voted against renaming the conf from NIPS to NeurIPS, then the mob lead by Anima lobbyed against the vote, so the name finally changed.
That was indeed sad, but this time let's vote and prevail.
Again, this is an absurd, amateurish, and dangerous idea of what ethics is about and how it works. If anything, a still large prevalence of practitioner that do not see the importance of ethical assessments calls for education, not for removal of those assessments.
+1
Imo, @timnitGebru's case has demonstrated that ethics board members (or reviewers asked to also provide an ethics assessment) should either be free from any possible conflicts of interest (commercial or otherwise), or abstain from providing ethics advice at all.
Given the substantial industry involvement in the (senior) PC and the foundation's board (4/11 from Google Research), ethics reviews at #neurips may be unavoidably confounded with commercial interests. In any case I do not see how doubt could be avoided.
That's a huge problem.
Yes, yes. Let us decide ethics on a poll.
Unfortunately, if the results agree with what “one side” believes, they will consider the poll valid. If they do not, they will be attributed to the “twitter mob” and dismissed. Very hard to change scientists minds
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
