Actually, no, this seems to work on a very different principle.

Good point. I'd try to grep for something like [Bb3][Ee3]g[Ii1][nη]\w+<and so on> but I just know I'll miss something

skeptical that it’s technologically feasible to search through the entire training corpus, which is an absolutely enormous amount of data

Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. do it all the time.

I have tried it myself. My Firefox shows PDFs inline, and "opens" other files (i.e. downloads them to /tmp) only via changing settings (browser.download.open_pdf_attachments_inline is false for me).

I fear it will end egalitarianism.

Many imagine future AI as an autonomous agent. I don't think anyone will release that. Instead, I expect to see a generative AI like GPT-4, however one that produces super-smart responses.

This will create a situation where the amount of computing resources someone has access to determines how much intelligence they can use. And the difference will be much bigger and more comprehensive than the difference between a genius and a normal human.

That's not the accepted usage of the term, though. Rather, open source = free software.

And while I do like the term free software better, I don't think trying to start war on which term to use would help anything.

I think calling it "dangerous" in quotes is a bit disingenuous - because there is real potential for danger in the future - but what this article seems to want is totally not the way to manage that.

A way to deal with false positives of an ML NSFW scanner would be: Once per day, each user can "overwrite" the scanner. If a user is caught abusing this, they get banned.

I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty

Maybe. To me it read more like: "According to Zoom's CEO, Zoom can't fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it's bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting." Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe I'm just taking it too literally, but I just don't like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.

fail to account for spaces critical to trust-building such as water-cooler talk and outside of work events

What do you mean by that? If you are fully virtual there's going to be no water cooler talk - but that's a legitimate difference between in-person and virtual that should affect the results of the study. So it makes sense to me that the study shouldn't try to control for that.

and fail to replicate virtual versions of predominantly in-person activities

I don't think you can. Take for example board games as an in-person activity. The virtual replacement would be video games. A video game can do everything a board game can (with some exceptions) - but it can do so much more. So, purely from a game design perspective, video games would be much better. The main thing that video games don't have, while board games do, is the in-person interaction. Yet, there's plenty of people who play board games, but not video games. Clearly the in-person part is important.

Maybe it doesn't have to be a criminal conviction - but there must be some process to review the evidence, and establish that the attempt happened.

True - but I don't think the goal here is to establish that AI companies must purchase 1 copy of each book they use. Rather, the point seems to be that they should need separate, special permission for AI training.

AFAIK lemm.ee fits all your requirements, what don't you like about it?

~~Edit: Maybe I'm wrong. It's run by Estonians, but looking up its IP, it point to the US, so maybe it's not hosted in the EU.~~