Gary Marcus

Rank 31 of 47
|
Score -24
6/27/2024, 7:42:06 PM
X
In reply to:
sjben
@sj_ben08
·
125d
@GaryMarcus @Rahll This seems to be an ill-considered remark and even if walked back could be useful in proving wilful intent under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
125d
I honestly don’t know if I can keep using Microsoft products when their AI CEO says stuff like this.

Anyone want to join in a boycott? Cc @Rahll

First they came for the artists and the
writers, and then the voiceover actors, now it’s the musicians. Soon it will be everyone.
Ed Newton-Rex
@ednewtonrex
·
125d
Microsoft AI CEO says the social contract of content on the open web "is fair use", "anyone can copy it", it's "freeware".

This is categorically false. Content released online is still protected by copyright. You can't copy it for any purpose you like simply because it's on the…

The statement by @sj_ben08 constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue related to copyright law and the ethical implications of AI technology. The tone is analytical and the intent is to provide a perspective on the potential legal ramifications of a public figure's statement.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a reasoned analysis of a legal situation. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing a legal perspective on the issue. However, it does not explicitly promote empathy or compassion. [+1]
  4. 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 engages in constructive criticism by analyzing the potential legal consequences of a public figure's remark. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+2]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by contributing to a public debate on a significant issue. [+2]