…it can occasionally be both, like Claude E. Shannon, who was the first winner of the Claude E. Shannon Award. But seriously, I can't believe he had to wait until 102 years old!
@thegautamkamath
-
C.R. Rao Receives Prestigious Award After Legendary Career
By
–
C. R. Rao is such a legendary Statistician that I assumed the award was named after him, not being given to him… Surprised it took this long!
-
ICML Reviewer Feedback Form Raises Concerns About Research Evaluation
By
–
One person named "ICML reviewer" left a comment on my anonymous feedback form (
https://
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI
pQLSeaGCkEdvrnEobtQuj7zlyjdkV4dKKHiNdioen2X0BhtSZL0w/viewform
…). Others can feel free to as well. Not a positive sign. -
Academic Reviewers Laziness in Paper Review Process
By
–
Hot take: ACs can be the laziest folks in reviewing Avg AC prolly:
-Autopick reviewers
-Don't read paper
-Send form OpenReview msgs to missing reviewer (if lucky)
-Don't discuss with or prompt reviewers
-Threshold scores (late)
-Call it a day
Can any reviewers/SACs refute? -
Administrative Tasks and Emails: AI Automation Solutions
By
–
Super relatable. Little administrative tasks and emails are like death by 1000 papercuts.
-
PhD ML Market Evolution: From Leaders to Specialized Contributors
By
–
It'll take time, but I think it's possible. Currently, everyone finishing a PhD in ML is expected to be a "leader." But as demand for people with expertise in ML grows, there will be more space for "followers." So there will be incentives for being 3rd author on a bunch of papers
-
Peer Review Process: Author Responses in Academic Evaluation
By
–
I totally agree that the reviewers should read author responses and take them into account in their evaluation (otherwise, what's the point). I don't think the reviewers need interact more with the authors after that point (though they should with the other reviewers and AC)
-
ICML2023 Sets Reviewer Expectations on Author Response Engagement
By
–
#ICML2023 draws a line in the sand: reviewers are expected to read author response, but aren't required to engage with them further. Very sensible position. Reviewing is a volunteer position. It shouldn't turn into a full-time job arguing the merits of a paper with the authors.
-
ML papers should be trivial theory papers complicated
By
–
When writing an ML paper, it should be so trivial that all reviewers understand everything. When writing a theory paper, it should be so complicated that no reviewer understands everything. https://
x.com/shortstein/sta
/shortstein/status/1641111660248330241
…