In reply to:
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
ยท
439d
The statement is part of a conversation about the limitations of deep learning and AI, which is a topic of public interest and debate within the tech community. The tone of the statement is critical and challenges the dismissal of concerns regarding AI development. The intent seems to be to hold a conversation about the intellectual rigor in discussions about AI and its problems.
- The statement does not appear to intend harm but expresses frustration with the discourse.ย [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on the argument rather than the individual.ย [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement calls for a more intellectual engagement, which could promote understanding if followed by substantive discussion.ย [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement itself is a form of constructive criticism, although it borders on personal criticism by calling the previous response 'nonintellectual' and 'anti-intellectual'.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.
- There is no indication of a mistake being acknowledged or corrected.Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement aims to use influence to encourage a more serious discussion about AI, which could be seen as for the betterment of society.ย [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech and uses the platform to engage in the debate responsibly.ย [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.