Is ACL now irrelevant? [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
I just read in a comment of another Post that an ACL paper is considered a weak signal in the community apparently, and having an ACL first author paper is not a great plus for improving chances at finding a PhD position. Is this some kind of ragebait or is academia becoming more and more insane on a daily basis??
ACL is an A+ venue. Sure, it's not as big as Nips, ICML, ICLR or CVPR, fair point, but it's not some regional B conference...
I know a lot of folks in "classical" CS have an issue with AI venues, as they are receiving more focus in recent years than ICSE or FSE, and hence all AI papers must be bad and very unscientific.
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
Aug 14
-
Building text to ASCII diffusion model , need advice and guidance [P]
Aug 14
-
A collision-entropy floor for watermark/retrieval AI-text detection. Looking for a sanity check before I take this further [D]
Aug 14
-
Are supervised and unsupervised learning still relevant today? [D]
Aug 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.