The controversy here is specifically around Stochastic Parrots, by among others Timnit Gebru and "Schmargaret Smitchell". Timnit had recently been fired by Google for a controversy that started when leadership prevented her and Margaret from being coauthors on the paper (which is critical of Google in some ways) and Mitchell was fired a few months later.

Google[0] claims the paper didn't meet the bar for publication and ignored too much relevant research. The authors obviously dispute these claims (I generally side with the authors that the "ignored research" line is a stretch).

The then amusing thing is that a number of Google authored or coauthored papers still cite it, for various reasons[1][2] (but there's another like half dozen or so Google papers at least in the ~500 citations). So the entire controversy is that the paper wasn't up to academic standards, except that empirically it clearly was.

> Were they reworked at all after being told they weren't up to standard?

There was an attempt by the authors to respond to the internal criticism, but this wasn't met constructively.

[0]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2kYWDXwhzYnq8ebVtuk9CqQ... [1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.06499.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.01652.pdf

If the argument is Timnit was fired for her Stochastic Parrots paper, why weren't the Google authors that referred to her papers fired as well?

Instead, maybe Timnit was fired/resignation accepted not because of her paper, but because 1) she was in management, and 2) she explicitly told her reports to stop the work they're doing, for "reasons", to the point where Jeff Dean had to come in and ask the employees to continue working on DEI programs: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

I simply repeated Jeff Dean's own words that he claims the paper "didn’t meet our bar", yet continued to be cited (even by Dean himself, though arguably he's citing it to disagree...but then that's the way academia should work!).

I didn't claim to know why exactly she was fired. I'm just claiming that Jeff's objection to her paper seems dubious.

And keep in mind her coauthor (Mitchell) was eventually fired. But yes, the question you ask is a good one, and I think the answer is revealing (the paper did in fact meet the bar for publication, and it was killed for political reasons, making Gebru's reactions quite reasonable!)

> she explicitly told her reports to stop the work they're doing,

No she didn't. She told them to refocus to be more effective. That's a completely reasonable! Quoting her email: "So if you would like to change things, I suggest focusing on leadership accountability and thinking through what types of pressures can also be applied from the outside."

That doesn't sound like "stop working on DEI" to me.

Does "What I want to say is stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference" sound like stop working on DEI to you? With the context that the documents are their work products about DEI...

With the full context of the letter, no not at all, unless you think that Documents are the ultimate work product of DEI and not like improvements in diversity, equity, and inclusion in the company.

It's very clearly a call to stop focusing on ineffective things and to focus on more effective methods.

> There was an attempt by the authors to respond to the internal criticism, but this wasn't met constructively.

Really? Because people claiming to be the reviewers at the time said that the version they reviewed was a lot worse than the final version published much later. (And that version wasn't too great either.)

That's because the paper received additional external peer review as part of the normal academic publishing process at FAccT.

The internal special topics review process that wasn't formalized at the time but was pseudo-formalized later in response to this issue also supposedly allowed revision, but in practice this authors weren't given the opportunity to respond to the feedback, they were only give the option to remove their names from the paper.

So both your statement and mine can be true, as their were multiple reviewers in multiple review processes. To further disambiguate, the FAccT reviewers have noted that the paper improved during the academic peer review process. This is likely true. But that's wholly irrelevant to the line of discussion I was having, because that criticism wasn't "internal", and we can be sure it wasn't relevant because we know the internal reviewers have never identified themselves or made comment on the internal review process.

I recognize that this is complicated, and it doesn't help that afaict, Google has tried to blur the lines between their process and the normal academic peer review process.

Well OK then, but your point was that "the original version must have been acceptable because Googlers later cited the final version, gotcha!", and the more review and improvement it undergoes by whomever, the less sense your point makes.

You're correct that that claim doesn't make sense, but then it's not one I made.