What stood out to you?

The whole paper doesn't go beyond surface-level analysis. The main point is that language models reflect the same biases as its training data. Very little of it is technical. Most of it is about examples of how language models aren't as politically correct as the authors want it to be (e.g. calling female doctors "female doctors" when it's not relevant to the context). It's a legitimate concern, but anyone who remembered Microsoft Tay would know that.

the paper was not the problem, her attitude & reaction to peer review was the problem - giving ultimatums, demanding to disclose names of the reviewers, and broadcasting emails to entire team calling for sabotage.

Her behavior fits the definition of 'toxic employee', it was unprofessional by any standard.

The other curious thing is, behind the pink-boxed redactions are the names of four other Google employees. I'm wondering why they haven't been reprimanded in the same way. At least, not that we know of.

Well, she wasn't reprimanded for writing the paper nor for publishing it. In fact, she wasn't even reprimanded as far as I know for telling other employees to stop working on DEI. She told them she wanted confidental information or she will quit on a date she would like. They said they would not give her that information and that she is no longer welcome at the company. This isn't really reprimanding or even a normal firing. If I tell my boss do X or I quit and they say "Thanks for your work, we accept your resigination and the legal notice period applies." Fair play.

> She told them she wanted confidental information

I understand this is only because upper management had chosen to anonymize their review of the paper, which is apparently quite unusual in Google.