In reply to:
The statement provides a critical perspective on the interpretation of AI performance in fact-checking, questioning the use of the term 'superhuman' and its implications.
- The statement aims to clarify the findings and ensure accurate representation, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the dignity of human annotators by highlighting the potential undervaluation of their work, aligning with the principle of respecting the privacy and dignity of others. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- By offering a nuanced view, the statement promotes understanding of the limitations of AI fact-checking, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+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 engages in constructive criticism without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement does not acknowledge any mistakes as it is a critique, so this principle is not applicable.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement uses influence to encourage a more nuanced discussion about AI capabilities, aligning with the principle of using influence for the betterment of society. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.