Submitting to top ML Conferences without Sharing code [D]
Fear of idea theft prompts rethink on sharing code in submissions...
A recent discussion on r/MachineLearning has ignited a debate among AI researchers about the practice of sharing code with submissions to top-tier conferences like NeurIPS and ICML. The original poster, u/Massive-Bobcat-5363, questioned whether it's reasonable to withhold code until after acceptance, citing concerns that advanced AI agents could steal ideas from submitted code. They noted that while reviewers often request code, they rarely scrutinize it deeply, and some colleagues have successfully submitted without it in recent ICML cycles.
The core tension lies between reproducibility and intellectual property protection. The researcher emphasized that their submission would still detail algorithms, hyperparameter tuning protocols, and repetition counts to support reproducibility. However, they worried about the risk of idea theft, given the increasing capabilities of AI agents. This reflects a broader shift in the ML community, where the value of open code is weighed against the potential for exploitation. As conferences like NeurIPS evolve, this debate may influence future submission guidelines and norms around code sharing.
- A Reddit user sparked debate on whether to withhold code from NeurIPS submissions due to fear of AI agents stealing ideas.
- Some researchers successfully submitted to ICML without code, relying on detailed algorithmic descriptions and hyperparameter protocols.
- Reviewers often request code but rarely deeply review it, creating a tension between reproducibility and IP protection.
Why It Matters
This debate could reshape submission norms, impacting reproducibility and intellectual property in AI research.