> Google: "Look, we're capable, but just beta-test this sh&t so we can make a product that will definitely overshadow our little contribution, okay? We need the

> Google: "Look, we're capable, but just beta-test this sh&t so we can make a product that will definitely overshadow our little contribution, okay? We need the product, we need the money. You'll get a nice little badge on your profile to signal your interest with your peers. This is open and responsible AI." Respectfully, nobody gives a f&ck. The actual way you do it is at least publish a paper(or butchered code) or make the product accessible to all.(Or to a number of people that scales proportionally with your claims of greatness). You cannot do either of those? Well that smells of trying to be opportunistic, doesn't it? If i recall, OpenAI in it's infancy with the GPT* family at least published some papers (which Google also used to do, by the way), then they built upon that to eventually release a product. Yes the product was never free at the beginning nor very publicized, because it wasn't advertised to be the holy grail of anything. To sum up my opinion on this matter: you can never truly scale and innovate with >only releasing a lobotomized product< or >only releasing a paper with no visible applications<. You need a little balance between sparking interest and satisfying the hype you give about the product(if any).*