While I agree with you in general, I'd like to point out a maybe-not-so-small detail:
> Sure, there will be papers where very specialized hardware or internal infrastructure of 10,000 computers were used. But those papers would be great for Tier 2 conferences.
This is an accurate description of a _lot_ of Google papers when it comes to Computational Linguistics. And I don't know whether a Tier 1 conference that rejects the biggest players could remain a Tier 1 conference for long.
There are many papers in Comp. Ling. right now that claim state of the art by running neural networks for a couple weeks on very expensive hardware. If those papers are not allowed in Tier 1 conferences then we should call it "state-of-the-cheap-art", but accepting them undermines the whole point since only a select few can afford it.
I don't say it can't be done. But I do think that it's not trivial.
> Sure, there will be papers where very specialized hardware or internal infrastructure of 10,000 computers were used. But those papers would be great for Tier 2 conferences.
This is an accurate description of a _lot_ of Google papers when it comes to Computational Linguistics. And I don't know whether a Tier 1 conference that rejects the biggest players could remain a Tier 1 conference for long.
There are many papers in Comp. Ling. right now that claim state of the art by running neural networks for a couple weeks on very expensive hardware. If those papers are not allowed in Tier 1 conferences then we should call it "state-of-the-cheap-art", but accepting them undermines the whole point since only a select few can afford it.
I don't say it can't be done. But I do think that it's not trivial.