This thread exposes a basic misunderstanding.
Some believe that science evaluation comes down evaluating scientists' intrinsic abilities, skills, or merit.
For them, using AI tools is like "cheating".
But science must solely evaluate *impact*.
It's not a beauty contest.
Argentina wins the World Cup!!!!!!
Messi is the greatest of all time!!
Legendary player. Legendary game. The greatest sporting event I've ever seen in my life.
I love you all!!!!!!!!!!
It was such an honour to receive the Pius XI medal from Pope Francis and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences @CasinaPioIV, following in the footsteps of some of my scientific heroes including the late great Stephen Hawking!
This is a cyclist using his knowledge of physics and aerodynamics to gain a competitive advantage
Michael Guerra unclips from his pedals, lies down on the seat and stretches out his legs to achieve ultimate aerodynamic efficiency.
What is harder than producing groundbreaking research? Convincing your colleagues about it. What is even harder? Convincing conference reviewers about it.
If you want to make the world a better place... chances are the most effective way to do it is to have kids and raise them well. So that the next generation may be kind, compassionate, and emotionally & intellectually fulfilled.
I always tell all my students: do not take outcome of *any* conferences seriously, no matter what others tell you. Focus on doing significant research and writing good papers. Treat conference submissions as a drill for sharpening your academic skills - that is all what they are
Feeling a bit anxious about the NeurIPS reviews being released in about a week ...
A list of rejected papers that ended up having a significant impact:
- PageRank
- Word2Vec (poster)
- YOLO
- Transformer-XL
- Dropout
- Kalman Filters
- RoBERTa
- GELU
via https://t.co/HfeiGi9C8J