Jacob Silverman
@SilvermanJacob
·
110d
The statement and the accompanying conversation engage in public discourse by discussing the economic and technological implications of generative AI, a topic of significant public interest. The tone is critical and somewhat dismissive, asserting that generative AI is a failure. The statement references a Goldman Sachs report to support its claim, indicating an attempt to ground the argument in research, though it does not fully engage with the nuances presented in the report.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as dismissive of the efforts and investments in generative AI, potentially discouraging innovation and investment in the field. This could be seen as a minor violation of striving to do no harm. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is critical without acknowledging the complexities and potential future developments in generative AI. This is a minor violation of promoting understanding and empathy. [-1]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 dismisses generative AI as a 'dud' without engaging with the counterarguments or the more optimistic views presented in the Goldman Sachs report. This is a moderate violation of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [-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.