I was wondering if anyone knew enough to clarify a couple of things from this part of Dean's letter: > Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared wit

I was wondering if anyone knew enough to clarify a couple of things from this part of Dean's letter: > Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted. There seems to be something between the lines here. How was it approved for submission? Did Gebru or one of the other authors approve it? And if so, would that be unusual? > 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. We acknowledge that the authors were extremely disappointed with the decision that Megan and I ultimately made, especially as they’d already submitted the paper. Does this contradict what Gebru has said so far? Didn't she say she wasn't given any feedback?