In reply to:
Burny — Effective Omni
@burny_tech
·
598d
The statement by @burny_tech is a part of a technical discussion regarding the stability and reliability of AI models, specifically in response to Gary Marcus's critique of GPT-4o and the hypothetical GPT-5. The statement acknowledges receiving counterexamples from others and expresses a personal limitation in time to experiment, which suggests a cautious or skeptical stance towards the stability of the AI models discussed.
- The statement does no harm as it is a neutral contribution to a technical discussion. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It respects the dignity of others by not attacking or demeaning any individual or group. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding by acknowledging the receipt of counterexamples, which contributes to a broader understanding of the AI model's performance. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- It engages in constructive criticism by pointing out the potential instability of the AI models based on received counterexamples. [+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 their own limitations in experimentation, which shows a willingness to correct or expand understanding in the future. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement uses the platform to contribute to a technical discussion, which can be seen as using influence for the betterment of understanding AI technologies. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.