NeurIPS should lead scientific consensus on AI policy
Designing wise AI policy is a grand challenge for society. To design such policy, policymakers should place a premium on rigorous evidence and scientific consensus. While several mechanisms exist for evidence generation, and nascent mechanisms tackle evidence synthesis, we identify a complete void on consensus formation. In this position paper, we argue NeurIPS should actively catalyze scientific consensus on AI policy. Beyond identifying the current deficit in consensus formation mechanisms, we argue that NeurIPS is the best option due its strengths and the paucity of compelling alternatives. To make progress, we recommend initial pilots for NeurIPS by distilling lessons from the IPCC's leadership to build scientific consensus on climate policy. We dispel predictable counters that AI researchers disagree too much to achieve consensus and that policy engagement is not the business of NeurIPS. NeurIPS leads AI on many fronts, and it should champion scientific consensus to create higher quality AI policy.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Reproducibility: The New Frontier in AI Governance
AI policymakers are responsible for delivering effective governance mechanisms that can provide safe, aligned and trustworthy AI development. However, the information environment offered to policymakers is characterised …
Machine Learning Research Has Outpaced Its Communication Norms and NeurIPS Should Act
Machine learning research has grown exponentially while its communication norms have not. We argue NeurIPS should adopt explicit, measurable writing standards. We analyze 2.8 million arXiv papers (1991-2025), 24,772 Neur…
When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in Scientific Peer Reviews
To this date, the efficacy of the scientific publishing enterprise fundamentally rests on the strength of the peer review process. The journal editor or the conference chair primarily relies on the expert reviewers' asse…
PRISM: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Peer Reviewers
The rapid growth in submissions to machine learning venues has strained the scientific peer-review system and intensified interest in LLM-based automated peer reviewers. However, how good these systems are actually, espe…
Argument MiningRIGOURATE: Quantifying Scientific Exaggeration with Evidence-Aligned Claim Evaluation
Scientific rigour tends to be sidelined in favour of bold statements, leading authors to overstate claims beyond what their results support. We present RIGOURATE, a two-stage multimodal framework that retrieves supportin…