Yeah, not totally clear how sustainable it is. But the culture seems to be pretty good for now.
@thegautamkamath
-
Computer Science Recruitment Timeline: November Deadlines January Interviews
By
–
Computer Science deadlines are typically in November or December. Interviews thus start in January or maybe February in extreme cases.
-
ML Privacy Risks Beyond Verbatim Memorization Research
By
–
Nice paper (ft @daphneipp @florian_tramer @katherine1ee +more) that argues looking at verbatim memorization is inadequate when considering ML privacy risks It also has the most interesting author ordering I've ever seen. So much for alphabetical or random https://
arxiv.org/abs/2210.17546 -
AI Advances Spark Imposter Syndrome Among Graduate Students
By
–
Every grad student with imposter syndrome is now looking over their shoulder
-
Student Conference Access and Educational Equity Priorities
By
–
Fair is another question. But if it's a question of my student going to a conference or not, I'll do whatever I can to send them. Things don't always work out fair.
-
ICLR2023 Paper Reviews Spark Discussion on Research Quality
By
–
#ICLR2023 reviews are out… and seem incredibly brutal for a couple of papers that I really like! (by others, not by me) Good luck and happy weekend to everyone…
-
JMLR Review Delays: How TMLR Improves Academic Publishing
By
–
I had the same experience with JMLR back in 2015. After 6 months, they hadn't found reviewers. Withdrew the paper and submitted to a different journal. I like that @TmlrOrg doesn't run into this type of friction, since reviewers are expected to review it after being assigned.
-
Advisor Funding Student Conference Travel Costs
By
–
This varies based on advisor and country. But if my students have a paper accepted at a conference, it's already implied that I will cover their costs. My students are thoughtful enough with group resources to look into travel grants and school funding, but the buck stops at me.
-
Academic Review: Identifying Non-Novel Results in Research Papers
By
–
By pointing out exactly what they consider to be not novel, e.g., the main result appears to follow as a special case of this result of XYZ. If brought up earlier, maybe the reviewers and authors could jointly figure this out. But at the last minute, the AC's should do it alone
-
Protecting Rejected Papers Against Reviewer Copy-Paste Plagiarism
By
–
In some sense, making your rejected paper public can protect against a reviewer copy-pasying the review. You can point out the fact that this is just copy-pasted, with all the critiques already addressed, and any half-awake AC will disregard said reviewer.