The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the current state and challenges of AI technology. It critiques the notion that AI is 'fairly solved' and highlights ongoing issues such as hallucinations and errors in AI systems. The tone is critical and aims to correct a perceived misunderstanding about the maturity of AI technology.
- The statement aims to do no harm by addressing a technical issue rather than attacking individuals. However, the use of 'boneheaded errors' could be seen as harsh and slightly disrespectful, which might detract from the principle of doing no harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by pointing out specific issues (hallucinations and errors) that are still prevalent in AI, thus fostering a more realistic view of the technology. [+2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing a disagreement about the state of AI. However, the term 'boneheaded errors' could be seen as a minor personal attack, which slightly undermines the principle of constructive dialogue. [-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 statement implicitly acknowledges a mistake or misunderstanding in the perception of AI's current state and seeks to correct it by providing a more nuanced view. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.