In reply to:
Dan Schwarz
@dschwarz26
·
430d
The statement in question is part of a conversation about the accuracy of information provided by an AI regarding the age of Gary Marcus's son. The user @dschwarz26 is clarifying that the information should state 'no available information' for the current age, as the known information pertains to an older period. This is a response to a previous comment about the output of another AI service, which inaccurately suggested that Gary Marcus currently has a 1-year-old son.
- The statement aims to correct misinformation, thereby preventing potential harm that might arise from spreading inaccurate personal details. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It respects the privacy and dignity of Gary Marcus by clarifying that the available information is outdated and should not be used to draw current conclusions. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The user promotes understanding by pointing out the need for accurate representation of available data. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the AI's output, suggesting an improvement in how information is presented. [+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- The user acknowledges the mistake made by the AI in presenting outdated information as current, and suggests a correction. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- By advocating for accurate and clear information, the user uses their influence to promote better standards in AI-generated content. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.