NeurIPS 2019, the latest incarnation of the Neural Information Processing Systems conference, wrapped up just over a week ago. Multiple great blog posts have already summarized various talks and key trends, so the goal of this piece is more humble: to reflect on the experience of attending the conference, and in particular whether its vast size is harmful to its purpose as a research conference. Thirteen thousand attendees, 1,428 accepted papers, and 57 workshops vast. This is 9 minutes condensed down to 15 seconds, and this is not even close to all the attendees! Is that a Rolling Stones concert?
It's been a busy few days at NeurIPS 2020 so far with all manner of talks, workshops, tutorials and socials on offer. This selection of tweets gives a flavour of the various events and discussions taking place. Go watch it right now, you won't regret it! Interesting talk by Chris Bishop at #NeurIPS2020 Basic or Applied research is not a 1D space. Next up at #NeurIPS2020: Shafi Goldwasser presenting on three works about privacy, verifiability, and robustness in machine learning.
The NeurIPS 2020 paper reviews were sent out last Friday, starting the author response phase. While many researchers are pondering how to draft their rebuttals, others are decrying what they see as problematic or even "terrible" reviews. It's that time of year, and controversies are again swirling around the prestigious machine learning conference's review process. Seeing terrible @NeurIPSConf reviews for the nth time I am convinced that we should ban reviewers from submitting as authors if they can't write a review in good faith. Anandkumar suggested banning reviewers from submitting papers "if they can't write a review in good faith." I don't have access to GPT3 to complete the'Th' you left in the one sentence review, do you mean thunder, or Thursday."