Thanks for sharing, Prof. Bengio. I have a concern with calling everything "AI". Most systems that are targeted for regulation are LLMs, but we still say "AI" this and that, even when it's not machine learning. It's like calling "vehicles" to cars, airplanes, etc and try to regulate them all at once

I've taken courses on how to design effective active learning for university curricula, but none of them targeted engineering students. I've always struggled to come up with innovative methods for learning complex and cumulative engineering and math concepts (probability theory, electromagnetism,..)

To me ACing became a game of "find the liar" as well 😮‍💨

Salmon is THE superfood 👍

Attitude matters.

Exactly, but you know, they just needed a reason to reject the paper 😇

Several similar approaches have appeared in the last year, quite ingenuous. Ours was rejected from a top conf because we didn't evaluate it for the VQA task 🤷‍♂️SMH🤦‍♂️

Those guys do not see research as knowledge-providing but as ladder-climbing. Some of them are also well known for their "very professional" paper peer reviews.

La política es un partido de fútbol, un teatro para distraer al público, un bingo barato en el que siempre ganan los organizadores. Si se plantan individuos ahí a decidir cosas, los requerimientos (intelectuales y morales) deberían ser muuucho más estrictos.

The system is completely broken.
blog.neurips.cc/2021/12/08/t...
Review results are random and affect the achievement record of thousands of researchers globally. If review quality cannot be controlled the responsibility would fall on ACs to recheck flagged papers, which doesn't seem feasible either

Acknowledgements to your people, random people, fictional characters and other fun stuff 👍

Our review praised our paper as relevant and interesting, but turned it down for lacking extra experiments in a task D and a model D. We rebutted that, based on the relevant works, our tasks A-B-C are enough for evaluation and that model D is out-of-scope and unrelated to models A-B-C. Rejected 😢😡

Muy interesante, y en mi ciudad natal además. Aunque yo no la definiría como charla científica, ya que todo lo que sea IA (en plan caja negra, fenómeno social, etc.) es más un tema a tratar por las humanidades. Si hablásemos de machine learning podrían considerarse problemas y soluciones específicas

Ensuring reviewers engage in discussions after the rebuttal would be pretty sweet too. I think the current review system is a matter of destiny, non-educational for either reviewers nor authors

Totally agree. Now, how do you ensure young researchers have good role models? If the answer is "you can't", then there is no way to ensure reviewers do their job. Mandatory regulated reviews (no vague claims such as "lack of novelty", logical and specific justifications, etc) would be interesting