>A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues.

So I don't work in AI, but in every field I have worked in, and in the academic journals I used to work for, all of these are issues that would be addressed during the standard peer review process.

You ignored recent publications? Reviewers will complain. A good journal will have peer reviewers who know which citations are missing.

You left out citations that weaken your conclusion? Reviewers will complain. Et cetera.

I realize people object to Gebru's history on Twitter, but Google exec's defense of her dismissal sounds pretty weak to me.