I'm probably way too late for this thought to get any traction / discussion - but I have this weird feeling that openai screwed up and showed it's "cool new thing" too early, and publicly.
As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think the real money is in making this a service, or "the product." I think the real money is in using AI internally as a puzzle piece of your backend - ie. the secret sauce behind xyz product.
I'm being very narrow here, but you can only do so much integrating what openai has built into your products - eventually "everything" providing data from the same model brings "everything" to the same level. In contrast if you train and create your own models to make xyz do something specific, nobody knows how it was done, or it surely makes it a lot harder to kang.
I have zero proof, but I suspect Google for instance has models that would literally obliterate what openai has shown capability wise. They're probably not necessarily language models though. Again, nothing to stand on here but I doubt their search and analytics for example are driven by hard coded algorithms these days.
Bard may have been released sort of as a "psh, we've been there done that" when in reality they didn't, because they never planned to make the models they were/are working on "publicly" available to use. It makes me wonder if this is how Google has lead for some long with some areas - now openai sort of screwed it up for everyone by making it a service that can be integrated / adopted by nearly anyone.
The only people I guess that are really going to know are the devs working for these big orgs, and I'm sure that lock and key knowledge.