3 ms·

It's in link number [3] that you posted in the section called "C — Types of societal impact"

by defen 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago
I'm still a bit confused, yes, those are two possible concerns. I didn't deny that. You seem to imply that there's some kind of purity test here, and I'm missing the kind of logical connection between the 7 potential categories of broader impacts listed in that list, each with multiple subcategories, and your claim >it's asking researchers speculate on the future ramifications of their research as it pertains to progressive ideals - in practice this means, "How could this negatively affect minorities or the environment?" The framing appears to be far broader than just that, and the "ritualistic" concern you note appears to be unsubstantiated given the other areas for broad impact, and in practice given that for a lot of concrete ML applications, the broader impact statements appeared to be mostly focused on things like efficiency (or just platitudinal), as noted by other commenters.
- defen 6y ago
  > in practice given that for a lot of concrete ML applications, the broader impact statements appeared to be mostly focused on things like efficiency (or just platitudinal), as noted by other commenters. If they're just platitudes or remarks about efficiency, why are some people so strongly opposed to including them, and some people so strongly in favor of including them? Basically, why does anyone care?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    As I understand it, the idea was that neurips said "hey lets try adding them to everything, and see what happens". And a lot of people gave a huge amount of backlash to this experiment for, as far as I can tell, reasons that amount to this being a form of liberal/leftist censorship. We're talking about, in this case, at least one person who is so scared of "wokism" that after Neurips changed its name from Nips to Neurips, he advocated for them to change it back, to, uhh, stick it to woke people I think?
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Even implying that your work might have downsides could negatively affect your funding. Anything that isn't frolicking unicorns and rainbows is kind of verboten.
    - zeckalpha 6y ago
      As grants get larger they want you to be explicit about your risks, rather than ignore them.

It's in link number [3] that you posted in the section called "C — Types of societal impact"

by defen 6y ago

It's in link number [3] that you posted in the section called "C — Types of societal impact"

I'm still a bit confused, yes, those are two possible concerns. I didn't deny that. You seem to imply that there's some kind of purity test here, and I'm missing the kind of logical connection between the 7 potential categories of broader impacts listed in that list, each with multiple subcategories, and your claim >it's asking researchers speculate on the future ramifications of their research as it pertains to progressive ideals - in practice this means, "How could this negatively affect minorities or the environment?" The framing appears to be far broader than just that, and the "ritualistic" concern you note appears to be unsubstantiated given the other areas for broad impact, and in practice given that for a lot of concrete ML applications, the broader impact statements appeared to be mostly focused on things like efficiency (or just platitudinal), as noted by other commenters.

defen 6y ago
> in practice given that for a lot of concrete ML applications, the broader impact statements appeared to be mostly focused on things like efficiency (or just platitudinal), as noted by other commenters. If they're just platitudes or remarks about efficiency, why are some people so strongly opposed to including them, and some people so strongly in favor of including them? Basically, why does anyone care?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  As I understand it, the idea was that neurips said "hey lets try adding them to everything, and see what happens". And a lot of people gave a huge amount of backlash to this experiment for, as far as I can tell, reasons that amount to this being a form of liberal/leftist censorship. We're talking about, in this case, at least one person who is so scared of "wokism" that after Neurips changed its name from Nips to Neurips, he advocated for them to change it back, to, uhh, stick it to woke people I think?
- mcguire 6y ago
  Even implying that your work might have downsides could negatively affect your funding. Anything that isn't frolicking unicorns and rainbows is kind of verboten.
  - zeckalpha 6y ago
    As grants get larger they want you to be explicit about your risks, rather than ignore them.