[ruebot]

Can a major AI conference shed its reputation for hosting sexist behaviour?

"The Neural Information Processing Systems meeting is trying to be more inclusive, but a recent survey reveals there is a long way to go."

(Formerly known as NIPS but more on that later.)

The Neural Information Processing Systems meeting is apparently a major talkfest in the AI community but its meetings have reportedly been marred by complaints of some Politically Incorrect Atrocities:

The issues were thrown into stark relief earlier this month with the release of a survey of 2,375 people — most of whom had either attended the meeting or submitted papers for consideration in previous years.

Respondents reported experiencing sexual harassment, seeing the conference welcome sexist people and regularly hearing sexist or sexually abusive comments and jokes. Women reported unwelcome, persistent advances from men at the conference. The analysis does not reveal what percentages of respondents reported these experiences, but does say that 15% of respondents were women.

Those who completed the survey also reported anti-Semitism, racism and ageism, as well as discrimination against straight men. “The environment at the conference is one in which many have experienced harassment, bullying, microaggressions, or lack of respect,” says the report.

But not to worry. In another article they took on the torrid, touchy topic of NIPS and termed it the NeurIPS meeting:

How a major AI conference is attempting to tackle its culture problem.


It's really not funny. Earlier this year Dominant Daemons in the depths of the FreeBSD Den drew up a Code of Conduct that among other things banned virtual hugs, making the use of one or more parenthesis around a persons name a violation of their personal space.

[Korrelan]

The biggest problem facing the AI comunity is... humans.

 

[Art]

The biggest problem facing the AI comunity is... humans.

 

As stated by a growing group of concerned robots! 

[ruebot]

I'll go with Critical Thinking for $1000, Alex.

The issues were thrown into stark relief earlier this month with the release of a survey of 2,375 people — most of whom had either attended the meeting or submitted papers for consideration in previous years.

If most did, not all did. So why are the contributions of those that didn't attend or submit papers considered in the survey? What value is assigned to most? 51%?