In reply to:
khazzan yassine
@KhazzanYassine
·
427d
The statement '@KhazzanYassine This answer to a suggested question was very weak, didn’t even manage to mention Pinker or Chomsky, was quite generic and mentions something 25 years after I left.' is a critique of the content and quality of a response in a public discussion about cognitive science and AI research. The statement addresses the perceived inadequacies in the response's depth and relevance, specifically noting the omission of significant figures in the field and the timing of the content discussed.
- The statement aims to correct what the user sees as an oversight in the discussion, potentially guiding it towards a more accurate representation of the topic. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The critique is direct and could be perceived as harsh but does not escalate to personal attacks or harassment.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The user's feedback, although critical, could foster a more detailed and comprehensive discussion on the topic, contributing to a better understanding among participants. [+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 points out specific shortcomings in the response, which could help in refining the quality of information and discussion in future interactions. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.