According to God of Prompt, leaked peer review emails highlight a growing divide in AI safety research, where reviewers prioritize standard benchmarks like TruthfulQA, while some authors focus on real-world harm reduction metrics instead. The emails expose that reviewers often require improvements on recognized benchmarks to recommend publication, potentially sidelining innovative approaches that may not align with traditional metrics. This situation underscores a practical business challenge: AI developers seeking to commercialize safety solutions may face barriers if their results do not show gains on widely-accepted academic benchmarks, even if their methods prove effective in real-world applications (source: God of Prompt on Twitter, Jan 14, 2026).