Worth mentioning that "GPU Poor" isn't created because those without much GPU compute can't contribute, but rather because those with massive amounts of GPU are able to perform many more experiments and set a standard, or shift the Overton window. The big danger here is just that you'll start expecting a higher "thoroughness" from everyone else. You may not expect this level, but seeing this level often makes you think what was sufficient before is far from sufficient now, and what's the cost of that lower bound?
I mention this because a lot of universities and small labs are being edged out of the research space but we still want their contributions. It is easy to always ask for more experiments but the problem is, as this blog shows, those experiments can sometimes cost millions of dollars. This also isn't to say that small labs and academics aren't able to publish, but rather that 1) we want them to be able to publish __without__ the support of large corporations to preserve the independence of research[0], 2) we don't want these smaller entities to have to go through a roulette wheel in an effort to get published.
Instead, when reviewing be cautious in what you ask for. You can __always__ ask for more experiments, datasets, "novelty", and so on. Instead ask if what's presented is sufficient to push forward the field in any way and when requesting the previous things be specific as to why what's in the paper doesn't answer what's needed and what experiment would answer it (a sentence or two would suffice).
If not, then we'll have the death of the GPU poor and that will be the death of a lot of innovation, because the truth is, not even big companies will allocate large compute for research that is lower level (do you think state space models (mamba) started with multimillion dollar compute? Transformers?). We gotta start somewhere and all papers can be torn to shreds/are easy to critique. But you can be highly critical of a paper and that paper can still push knowledge forward.
[0] Lots of papers these days are indistinguishable from ads. A lot of papers these days are products. I've even had works rejected because they are being evaluated as products not being evaluated on the merits of their research. Though this can be difficult to distinguish when evaluation is simply empirical.
[1] I once got desk rejected for "prior submission." 2 months later they overturned it, realizing it was in fact an arxiv paper, for only a month later for it to be desk rejected again for "not citing relevant materials" with no further explanation.