Reviewer has chosen not to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Excellent

Detailed Comments:

The authors have included my comments and (I believe) addressed the comments from the other reviewers too. The main issue highlighted by the other reviewers was the missing relevant literature, but it is also true that the field is advancing very quickly. I think
the paper can serve as a good entry point to the field and thus a good contribution to the inaugural issue of the NAI journal.

Reviewer has chosen to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Good

Detailed Comments:

I had reviewed this already, I think it is in an acceptable good state seems like authors made the changes I was asking (mostly).