It's funny that the authors are 'anonymous' but they have access to Imagen so obviously it's by Google.
- they rarely provide the data or code used so it's basically "i swear it works bro" research
- what they achieve is usually through having the most pristine dataset on the planet and is often unusable by other researchers
- other times they publish papers that are basically "we slightly modified this excellent open source paper, slapped an internal name on it and trained it on our proprietary dataset"
- sometimes they achieve remarkably little but their papers still get a shiny spot because they're a big name and sponsor all the conferences
- they've also been caught trying to patent/copyright ML techniques; disregarding that this is the same as privatizing math, these are often techniques they plainly didn't come up with
Also ever since OpenAI did their "we have to go closed-source for-profit to save humanity" PR campaign, every company that releases models that can achieve a large amount in NLP/CV gets dragged by the media and equated to Skynet.
Also it’s one of the only papers they put out that falls completely outside what I put above. They released everything about it including the model code, pretrained weights, the techniques; and it took quite a while for the model to “catch on” while it was peer reviewed and reproduced by others.
Something something broken clock
Once the paper is accepted (or rejected) the names may be revealed.
Though, in reality, the reviewers can often easily tell who wrote the paper.