The statement criticizes OpenAI for allegedly not being fully transparent or honest in various aspects, including openness, data training, finances, views on regulation, and decision-making processes. The tone is accusatory and suggests a pattern of behavior that the author finds concerning. The image shows a screenshot of a tweet that references an interview with OpenAI's CTO, describing it as a 'master class in how NOT to answer an obvious question,' which supports the statement's critical tone.
- The statement is critical and could be seen as harmful if the accusations are unfounded or exaggerated, but it also could be a form of holding an entity accountable for its actions. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not appear to violate the privacy or dignity of any individuals.Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement lacks empathy and does not promote understanding, as it is a one-sided critique without providing OpenAI's perspective. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not invite constructive dialogue or present a balanced view. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement aims to use influence to highlight perceived issues with OpenAI, which could be seen as an attempt to better society by demanding transparency and honesty. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement uses the platform to express a viewpoint, but the integrity of the claim depends on the accuracy of the information presented.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.