<aside> <img src="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" alt="/icons/info-alternate_gray.svg" width="40px" /> There are the obvious things:

1. Strong publication record will make hiring teir-1 AI researchers a lot easier. a) both in convincing people to join once they’re interested and b) finding people in the first place, by significantly increasing visibility.
2. Everything we figure out we need to put out eventually. Reviews and the publication process sharpen thinking and real deadlines focus effort.
3. We have the very rare opportunity to publish foundational papers here and effectively define the field. Why would we not do that.

</aside>

But the main thing is because we are developing a protocol, one of the most valuable things the business can acquire is attention. This is because the value of a protocol is very closely tied to the number and quality of it’s participants. Publication and working in the open is an obvious way to achieve this. It comes with risks, that its easier for people to copy/fork the project, but these are things that very rarely are the reasons companies fail, and I am not overly concerned about them.

Tier-1 papers establish the technical credibility of Pluralis to a level that many of the competitors will not be able to achieve. This is a core differentiator. But it’s not enough - many projects that are technically superior fail to worse projects that do a better job building community. So we have to do both; carry out great research and market it very well. If we can do both of those things we have both the lead, and defences. We achieve a very strong position. If another group does this and not us it’s bad.