I’m curious, what differentiates this from a preprint given the assumption it’s sufficient for publication? It didn’t read like marketing, they don’t seem to sell anything, and there's a link to a not-anthropic.com hosted paper.

▲

parl_match 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> they don’t seem to sell anything

i'll give you a hint: they're selling something

▲

refulgentis 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Let's say "anything talking about your product is selling something instead of doing science"

Then we're faced with "why would a (insert whatever makes this a preprint) mean they're not selling something"? (well, at least OP is faced with that, FWIW I think there's ~infinite snarky replies available, but they're sort of uninteresting, no? :)

	▲	effakcuL an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Well because it is not talking about your product that is what would've created the publication. But what is argued is the research should just be properly published. That publication would have been some advancement in enzyme research and not "Hey we pretend our fancy model created new research and we forget to mention that it was queried for weeks by experts in the field constantly correcting the model whenever it did something wrong until it resulted in something that the researchers could also have created on their own" Tbh I might be misrepresenting the original post, because in this case I did not read it, but for your point I feel like I also don't have to

▲

cannonpalms 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Look at what our product achieved" isn't selling anything? Do you want to take at this bridge I'm selling?

	▲	refulgentis 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure! (presuming it's "take a look at" :) After I entertain you by doing that, is there a steelman version of my reply you're interested in entertaining me with, by replying? Or, just the strawman?