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.
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.
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