This at the very least is a very misleading rebuke:<p>> However, this “whistleblower” admitted to a Google investigator that he had
no reason to believe fraud occurred: “he stated that he suspected that the research being conducted by Goldie and Mirhoseini was fraudulent, but also stated that he did not have evidence to support his suspicion of fraud<p>Er... obviously he didn't catch them on the act, literally manufacturing the data. In any case like this, before discovery, the most damning evidence you could possibly have is that you cannot reproduce the results, and in no court of law this would considered evidence of fraud. Evidence of fraud needs to show knowledge and intent.<p>To point this as if the whistleblower had actually recanted his accusation is misleading and clearly in bad faith. Google settled with the whistleblower (the case was for wrongful dismissal, not "fraud"), so we will never know.
Update:<p>Synopsys disavowed Markov's paper:
"Regarding the CACM article that Igor Markov's comments and writings do not represent Synopsys views or opinions in any way. Synopsys is also aligned with you on the potential of Reinforcement Learning AI for chip design"
(<a href="https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1859431937640665474" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1859431937640665474</a>)<p>Jeff Dean's post on the overall situation: <a href="https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/JeffDean/status/1858540085794451906</a>