[dogleg77]

Something is off with your source references. Chatterjee's amended complaint is a legal document filed under penalty of perjury, accepted by a US judge, available publicly, apparently not "thrown out". How does an earlier document figure into this? How do we know it was "thrown out" and for what reason? Obviously, a later document is what matters.

Also, you are using an unreviewed document from Google not published in any conference to counter published papers with specific results, primarily the Cheng et al paper. Jeff Dean did like that paper, so he can take it up with the conference and convince them to unpublish it. If he can't, maybe he is wrong.

Perhaps, you are biased toward Google, but why do think we should trust a document that was neither peer-reviewed nor published at a conference?

[wholehog]

His original complaint being dismissed matters because it suggests that he was fishing around for a complaint that was valid, and that perhaps his primary motivation was to get money out of Google.

Legal nitpick - you can get away with alleging pretty much whatever you want in a legal complaint. You can't even be sued for defamation if it turns out later you were lying.

Jeff Dean isn't saying that Cheng et al. should be unpublished; he's saying that they didn't run the method the same way. It is perfectly fine for someone to try changing the method and report what they found. What's not fine is to claim that this means that Google was lying in their study.

[dogleg77]

No, it doesn't suggest that. Complaints are often dismissed on technicalities or because they are written poorly.

Google claimed their new algorithm as a breakthrough. If this were the so, the algorithm would have helped design chips in many different cases. Now, the defense is that it only works for some inputs, and those inputs cannot be shared. This is not a serious defense and looks like a coverup.

[wholehog]

Three generations of TPU, Axion (ARM-based CPU), various other chips at AlphaBet, MediaTek's usage...