Avi Loeb

a review from a referee.

And I said, in response, I said, you're gaslighting me.

You told us that you don't want to send it to referees.

When you saw the backlash from me talking about it publicly, you decided to ask a referee so that you will be covered.

And then you send me this report and saying the paper should not be published after you told me that the paper should not be refereed.

And it's very easy to find an referee that would be negative, that will be critical.

Well, I mean, because of your exposure, we all learned her name.

Yes.

That was a problem, because now we all know who she is.

Yeah, but my point is, I don't know her personally.

I never met her.

But it's clear that there is a bias here, and it's clear that it's inappropriate because if she wanted to cover, as she did in the last move, if she wanted to cover herself so that it will not be clear that she is the one expressing the judgment without anyone from the scientific community, she would have sent it to a referee that she knows would be negative, and then she would be covered.

That's a very simple way of dealing with that.

Instead, three times in a row in three months in the same journal that never does that to my papers.

And it just shows you the situation in academia where you may ask, why aren't discoveries being made?

Because they are being suppressed by people who have a preferred narrative, which is completely inappropriate.

In my view, the way that corporations, for example, that deal with AI or with the internet, they have teams of people who are brainstorming.

The Nobel Prize was awarded to DeepMind.

We are in a reality where in academia, thinking boldly is not really encouraged, but even suppressed.

Does the system need to be changed?