In reply to:
Olivia P. Walker
@olivia_p_walker
·
136d
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
136d
The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the regulatory burden on tech companies, particularly in the context of AI regulation. The tone is measured and the intent is to contribute to the debate on the appropriate level of regulation for tech companies, acknowledging the risks involved.
- The statement does not use harmful language and aims to contribute constructively to the discussion, thus adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+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 risks that tech companies themselves have recognized, thus fostering a more nuanced discussion. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the need for some regulatory burden without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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 upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to discuss a public issue with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.