The list of signatories includes people with far less relevant qualifications, and significantly greater profit motive.
She's an informed party who doesn't stand to profit; we should listen to her a lot more readily than others.
We absolutely should not be ignoring research that doesn't support popular narratives; dismissing her work because it is critical of LLMs is not reasonable.
It's the same thing as saying a number theorist and a set theorist are in the same field cause they both work in the Math field.
LLMs don't directly use concepts from linguistics but they do produce and model language/grammar; it's entirely valid to use techniques from those fields to evaluate them, which is what she does. In the same vein, though a self-driving car doesn't work the same way as a human driver does, we can measure their performance on similar tasks.
Good to know my hunch was correct
Instead, it is that she has strong ideological motivations to make certain arguments.
Those motivations being that her research is now worthless, because of LLMs.
I don't believe the alignment doomsayers either, but that is for different reasons than listening to her.
She's intelligent and worth listening to, but she has just as much personal bias and motivation as anyone else.
I mean she is literally dismissing people who disagree with her based on their skin color. Can we stop for a minute to wonder about the incentives that encourage that?
(and I generally like her writing and think she has interesting things to say… but I do see a reward cycle going on)