Also why emphasis that G&M are women? This sounds like creating an unnecessary protectional bias for them.
ieee.org's editors are not doing a service to their members by making a chip design argument about AI a gender issue.
The tangents people, even here at HN, take viz-a-viz these topics, are often mind-boggling. And HN generally has less bot protection than places like reddit, too.
Some background is EE professional and academic culture has, for more than a half century been ... less than fine with having women colleagues. Lots of ugly. Decades of improvement too, reflecting a whole lot of years of work from lots of people and leadership. But... CS changed faster.
So an IEEE pub is pointing out that an IEEE-affiliated conference reportedly had... an excursion from professionalism baseline.
The independent reproduction that the IEEE article talks about also tested the method from the leaked paper from Chatterjee and concluded that his method indeed beats CT in almost all cases at a fraction of the computational cost.
The response from G&M to the independent reproduction emphasizes their method was used for production hardware at Google, was in a peer reviewed paper, and that their GitHub repo had a lot of forks and stars (I'm not making this up). Near the end it then raises several technical objections.
What is even the point of benchmarking against a learning based method of you don't let it finish learning? Quality of output matters way more than compute cost.