[sumnuyungi]

Is this paper on arxiv? This overview doesn't answer any critical questions. For example, it's easy to fill up 128 references and a reader shouldn't blindly trust a claim that, "The version of the paper we saw does also nod to several research efforts on reducing the size and computational costs of large language models, and on measuring the embedded bias of models."

If a key part of Google's claim is that the paper omits relevant research, an author should have simply posted their 128 references and openly asked what work was missing. This whole saga could be easily solved instead of being dragged out for clicks.

[mlyle]

> If a key part of Google's claim is that the paper omits relevant research, an author should have simply posted their 128 references and openly asked what work was missing. This whole saga could be easily solved instead of being dragged out for clicks.

So, we have on one hand, a researcher who got perilously close to litigation with her employer in the past (IMO because of missteps on both sides).

On the other hand, we have an employer that then was skittish about telling her that they didn't want the paper published (to protect the employer's business interests, mostly, it seems, while maintaining a veneer of open research organizations). And resorted to small statements through HR and intermediaries demanding retraction.

This relationship has broken down; there's no ready process to tidy up the misunderstandings.

I will say that Google's claims to be fostering an open discussion of AI ethics and confronting potentially uncomfortable truths on this path are looking a bit more dubious, though Ms. Gebru doesn't look so particularly easy to work with, either.

[hezag]

No, the paper is not on arxiv

> [...] Though Bender asked us not to publish the paper itself because the authors didn’t want such an early draft circulating online, it gives some insight into the questions Gebru and her colleagues were raising about AI that might be causing Google concern.