In reply to:
SimonLNeil
@sneilcbo
·
526d
The statement by @sneilcbo and the subsequent reply by @GaryMarcus engage in a substantive discussion about the ethical and practical implications of AI, which constitutes public discourse. The conversation addresses concerns about the potential negative impacts of AI and the possibility of mitigating these through better practices and leadership.
- The statement by @GaryMarcus strives to do no harm by acknowledging the current inadequacies in AI and suggesting that improvement is possible, which is a constructive approach. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding and empathy by recognizing the concerns about AI's negative impacts and offering a hopeful perspective on potential solutions. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive dialogue by addressing the concerns raised by @sneilcbo and providing a thoughtful response without resorting to personal attacks. [+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 uses the platform to advocate for better practices in AI, which aligns with the principle of using influence for the betterment of society. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.