They said it plainly ("dark corners that someone could use to misrepresent the goals of our project"): they just don't want to see their project in headlines about "Researchers create racist LLM!".

They already represented the goals of their project clearly, and gave examples of outputs. Anyone can already misrepresent it. That isn't their true concern.

Seems to me there are way fewer farmers per capita and yet much more food produced, thanks to more & improved capital use in farming.

And where did the farmers go? The children of farmers were absorbed into jobs that were created for automating the farming and other industrial work. Farm automation did not cause unemployment overall.

The question is whether reading:

- an entire novel worth of short texts, beginning to end

- an entire novel worth of short excerpts from longer texts

- an entire novel, beginning to end

are the same things.

Oh, are you responding to my examples?

* Last angel: A web serial, sure it's chunked into chapters/updates, but paper novels have chapters too.

* The Wandering inn, same as above, it's at 2 million+ words and counting. People read it.

* The Martian: Actually the shortest text of the bunch. Now available as a traditional paper novel.

I am not responding to the examples, and I am not challenging the claim that famous vs not famous author does not matter, or that dead tree vs screen does not matter; I am raising the question whether it's just a quantity issue ("Just so long as they read", "entire novels worth of text").

Is it? I am not sure either way. Do you lose something by only reading chapters of a novel but never the whole story from the beginning to the end, even if you're still reading the same amount?