Reposted by Gary Marcus
The statement presents a critical view of LLMs, suggesting they produce unreliable outputs that could contaminate the scientific peer-review process and damage reputations. It references the opinions of Gary Marcus and an article from the Financial Times, indicating a debate on the efficacy and risks associated with AI technology.
- The statement does not seem to intend harm but rather warns of potential negative consequences of LLMs, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others and does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- While the statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, it does raise awareness about a potential issue, which could indirectly lead to a more informed and empathetic discussion.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of LLMs without personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, focusing on the technology's impact rather than individuals. [+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.
- By raising concerns about the potential flaws in AI technology, the statement uses influence to potentially better society by encouraging scrutiny and caution. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech by contributing to the public debate on AI technology and does so responsibly, citing sources and engaging with the content's integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.