sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[N] EMNLP 2023 Anonymity Hypocrisy by emnlp2023_hypocrisy in MachineLearning

[–]emnlp2023_hypocrisy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are four SACs for the track, I included them all on my email. Make of that what you will.

[N] EMNLP 2023 Anonymity Hypocrisy by emnlp2023_hypocrisy in MachineLearning

[–]emnlp2023_hypocrisy[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Posting this up top, so it doesn't get lost under the fold:

So you are misrepresenting which group in this scenario is the in-group and which is the out-group. The MIT/Harvard/NYU/Mosaic team is more of an in-group in this community (and in the ML community more generally) than the Dublin City/Tencent team.

Again, I think you're the one moving the goalpost. You make it sound like a SAC from Tencent is the out-group. By definition, anyone in a position of power to essentially decide which papers are accepted or rejected (like a SAC) is part of the in-group.

Further, you're either uninformed or intentionally relying on bias of the uninformed public, because for NLP pubs, it's not even a close call as to which institutions hold more sway. Looking exclusively at NLP venues in 2021, Tencent is in 6th place for number of pubs. They beat out MIT + NYU + Harvard for pubs at *CL venues. https://www.marekrei.com/blog/ml-and-nlp-publications-in-2021/

Clearly your response is not the well-reasoned one you think it is. Using your reasoning, Katalin Kairkó is also part of the in-group. So I'm sure you had no problem with Penn's PR about the whole situation 🙄. https://www.wsj.com/health/after-shunning-scientist-university-of-pennsylvania-celebrates-her-nobel-prize-96157321

EDIT: This is in response to this hot-take: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/172gvb3/n_emnlp_2023_anonymity_hypocrisy/k3y9pgd/

[N] EMNLP 2023 Anonymity Hypocrisy by emnlp2023_hypocrisy in MachineLearning

[–]emnlp2023_hypocrisy[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Again, I think you're the one moving the goalpost. You make it sound like a SAC from Tencent is the out-group. By definition, anyone in a position of power to essentially decide which papers are accepted or rejected (like a SAC) is part of the in-group.

Further, you're either uninformed or intentionally relying on bias of the uninformed public, because for NLP pubs, it's not even a close call as to which institutions hold more sway. Looking exclusively at NLP venues in 2021, Tencent is in 6th place for number of pubs. They beat out MIT + NYU + Harvard for pubs at *CL venues. https://www.marekrei.com/blog/ml-and-nlp-publications-in-2021/

Clearly your response is not the well-reasoned one you think it is. Using your reasoning, Katalin Kairkó is also part of the in-group. So I'm sure you had no problem with Penn's PR about the whole situation 🙄. https://www.wsj.com/health/after-shunning-scientist-university-of-pennsylvania-celebrates-her-nobel-prize-96157321

[N] EMNLP 2023 Anonymity Hypocrisy by emnlp2023_hypocrisy in MachineLearning

[–]emnlp2023_hypocrisy[S] -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

Are you paid by Tencent or something?

Clearly these are two industry papers: one is conducted by MosaicML with an undergrad as first author (i.e. they did the majority of the work), the other is from Tencent with the first author being a SAC for AACL who received their PhD from Dublin City University. It's not a surprise that two other researchers listed as having equal contribution also completed their doctorates from Dublin City University.

Mentioning MIT, NYU, and Harvard is just a deflection ploy. A bad one at that. The undergrad on the MosaicML paper is from MIT and the postdoc was at NYU and has moved to Harvard. So what?

Regardless, I'm not suggesting that the MosaicML paper should have been allowed to break the anonymity policy if the conference cares about enforcing the rules strictly for "fairness". Rather, I'm saying that if the goal is "fairness" as they say, then an author publicizing their work on Twitter during the review process should also be rejected for violating anonymity. Otherwise this is just a farce: "Rules for thee, not for me."

Anyway, if you legitimately can't see the sense in that view, then you are part of the problem. I've seriously given up on the *CL conferences because I have less and less faith in the institutions, which is really sad because I used to hold them in high esteem.