Venue: ICLR 2023 TinyPapers

Reviews:

final_score: rating: Great Start (GS): a submission which meets some of the reviewing criteria but has room for improvement
review_content: summary_of_contributions: This paper summarizes the evolution of autonym’s measures throughout history. In addition, the author suggests a new perspective, in which autonym’s measures are not necessarily responsibility for justice’s measures.
strengths_and_weaknesses: Strengths:
1. Good flow, transition, and connections.
2. Good theoretical and law summary.

Weaknesses:
1. No emphasis on the impact for a specific domain, such as technology.
2. Interesting a view of point for autonym conceptualization, but more specification for this new direction and its impact would support the argument.
suggested_changes: Suggested Changes:

1. The paper provides a compressive study for autonym’s measures, but it does not render a real world application of autonym's measures and how people can utilize the measures to real world applications. The paper should emphasize the essential presence of autonym's measures, and link potential applications of autonym's measures in technology.
2. It is better for the paper to contain either simple empirical or user studies to validate that autonym’s measures are not necessarily responsibility for justice’s measures.
review_title: null

final_score: rating: Needs Clarification (NC): a submission which does not meet the reviewing criteria and needs clarification for its described problem or solution
review_content: summary_of_contributions: philosophical paper on 5 measures of autonomy however no link to Machine learning
strengths_and_weaknesses: Paper discusses on the justice system with 5 measures of autonomy
However doesn't provide how these measures will link with Machine Learning
Paper is purely philosophical and NOT Recommended for ICLR Tiny Paper 

suggested_changes: Authors can focus on using this measures of autonomy as policies that ascertain reinforcement learning
review_title: null

Meta-review: metareview: 1. Paper provides information of relevant literature in field of Law but fails to provide in the field of artificial intelligence
2. paper does not discuss about novel findings in the field of artificial intelligence
3. assumptions stated are in field of law not Artificial Intelligence, no proofs provided on the assumptions
4. Author needs to work on making this paper relevant for ICLR conference, currently this paper is most suited for conference on Law
5. With limited time limit, revision for acceptance to CCR is hardly possible.
confidence: 5: The area chair is absolutely certain
Decision: Invite to revise