[leot]

The dozens of "contributors" being presented in random order is, one would suppose, an anti-poaching tactic?

[zamadatix]

It's hard to know what it isn't for certain but there are many other reasons papers list contributors in a flat structure (be it random or alphabetical order). Particularly with large numbers of collaborators.

[JKCalhoun]

"References" section sort of narrows the field anyway.

[browningstreet]

As someone whose last name is near the end of the alphabet, that's not the first presumption I had seeing that page.

[ml-anon]

Well meta already got Ruoming so he can obviously give them a ranked list of who to grab.

Most of his team are former Google brain so GDM knows who is good.

[rafram]

Not very hard to look people up on LinkedIn and figure out who the core researchers are. I think this is just a very surface-level overview paper that encompasses a bunch of different research projects conducted by different teams, and it would be difficult to order the contributors in any meaningful way.

[44520297]

Considering a large portion of the contributors have names originating in a script and language that has no relationship whatsoever to English’s already arbitrary letter ordering, this list configuration is as good as any.