3 ms·
> 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 p
by 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 agoAs 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 agoEven 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 agoAs grants get larger they want you to be explicit about your risks, rather than ignore them.