It's Time to Do Something: Mitigating the Negative Impacts of Computing Through a Change to the Peer Review Process
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The computing research community needs to work much harder to address the downsides of our innovations. Between the erosion of privacy, threats to democracy, and automation's effect on employment (among many other issues), we can no longer simply assume that our research will have a net positive impact on the world. While bending the arc of computing innovation towards societal benefit may at first seem intractable, we believe we can achieve substantial progress with a straightforward step: making a small change to the peer review process. As we explain below, we hypothesize that our recommended change will force computing researchers to more deeply consider the negative impacts of their work. We also expect that this change will incentivize research and policy that alleviates computing's negative impacts.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
11 papers.
- 2022NAS-Bench-Suite: NAS Evaluation is (Now) Surprisingly Easycited by 36
- 2023The Ethical Implications of Generative Audio Models: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 18
- 2023Protecting Society from AI Misuse: When are Restrictions on Capabilities Warranted?cited by 16
- 2025Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 16
- 2023Responsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Toocited by 7
- 2022Speeding up NAS with Adaptive Subset Selectioncited by 6
- 2024BLIP: Facilitating the Exploration of Undesirable Consequences of Digital Technologiescited by 6
- 2022Atomist or Holist? A Diagnosis and Vision for More Productive Interdisciplinary AI Ethics Dialoguecited by 1
- 2026Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communicationscited by 1
- 2022Don't "research fast and break things": On the ethics of Computational Social Sciencecited by 0
- 2026Position: The Alignment Community is Unintentionally Building a Censor's Toolkitcited by 0
- 2026Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications20 Jun 2026
- 2026Position: The Alignment Community is Unintentionally Building a Censor's Toolkit5 Jun 2026
- 2025Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Review22 Jan 2025
- 2024BLIP: Facilitating the Exploration of Undesirable Consequences of Digital Technologies10 May 2024
- 2023Responsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Too20 Nov 2023
- 2023The Ethical Implications of Generative Audio Models: A Systematic Literature Review7 Jul 2023
- 2023Protecting Society from AI Misuse: When are Restrictions on Capabilities Warranted?16 Mar 2023
- 2022Speeding up NAS with Adaptive Subset Selection2 Nov 2022
- 2022Atomist or Holist? A Diagnosis and Vision for More Productive Interdisciplinary AI Ethics Dialogue19 Aug 2022
- 2022Don't "research fast and break things": On the ethics of Computational Social Science12 Jun 2022
- 2022NAS-Bench-Suite: NAS Evaluation is (Now) Surprisingly Easy31 Jan 2022