What a strange take. Do you not care about news coming from the James Webb Telescope either, just because you can't play with the telescope personally?
It's a whitepaper release to share the STOTA research. This doesn't seem like an economically viable model, nor does it look polished enough to be practically usable.
I think it's a perfectly valid take coming from some intersection of an engineering mindset and FOSS culture. And, the comparison you bring up is a bit of a category error.
We know how James Webb works and it's developed by an international consortium of researchers. One of our most trusted international institutions, and very verifiable.
We do not know how Genie works, it is unverifiable to non-Google researchers, and there are not enough technical details to move much external teams forward. Worst case, this page could be a total fabrication intended to derail competition by lying about what Google is _actually_ spending their time on.
We really don't know.
I don't say this to defend the other comment and say you're wrong, because I empathize with both points. But I do think that treating Google with total credulity would be a mistake, and the James Webb comparison is a disservice to the JW team.
James Webb Telescope is not something that can be - and is released. AI models are, and others are announcing them when they're available, but DeepMind introduces noise here with their "trust us, that works, now go away" approach.
> James Webb Telescope is not something that can be - and is released
I would actually turn that around. The Telescope is released. It's flying around up there taking photos. If they kept it in some garage while releasing flashy PR pages about how groundbreaking it is, then I'd be pretty skeptical.
