In reply to:
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
625d
The statement by @olivia_p_walker and the subsequent reply by @GaryMarcus engage in a public discourse about collaboration and professional conduct in the AI community. The tone of @GaryMarcus's reply is defensive and accusatory, indicating a personal conflict with the individual in question. The statement touches upon issues of professional integrity, collaboration, and public behavior.
- The statement by @GaryMarcus does not strive to do no harm. It accuses the other individual of blocking, stealing ideas, refusing to debate, and lying, which can be harmful and inflammatory. (-2 points) [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not respect the privacy and dignity of the other individual. It publicly accuses them of unethical behavior without providing evidence, which can be seen as a form of public shaming. (-2 points) [-2]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it escalates the conflict and creates a hostile environment. (-2 points) [-2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It resorts to personal attacks and ad hominem arguments rather than addressing the issues in a constructive manner. (-2 points) [-2]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.