This type of model, of which there are many, either directly releases their results as a precomputed database right away, or others release that database, or the method gets ignored.

Check out VIPdb for the broad category of methods/databases

https://genomeinterpretation.org/vipdb.html

These are predictors for "pathogenicity". Which is the vague concept of "does it cause genetic disease in humans" where "disease" itself is defined as the broad set of things that "brings patients into the doctor to figure out what's wrong."

The "regulatory impact" part of this is what differs from other predictors, in that it predicts the internal states as measured by several different assays, such as transcription regulating proteins are bound where in the genome, etc. Those predictions may or may not be usefel to people trying to reason about things going on in the cell, but my guess is that it's not going to get much use my molecular biologists, because the way the paper was described is pretty bad, and there are no experimental results I saw towards validating that.

But then, I'm not super interested in this paper. It's my field, but if there's something interesting I'm sure I'll hear about it from colleagues. Google is a fantastic advertising company that sometimes also does a bit of science, but this PR push is just an advertisement. A standard work-a-day paper gets covered as if it were ground breaking, and it will get enough eyes that I feel like I can safely ignore it until somebody in the field points out something interesting.