In reply to:
Bojan Tunguz
@tunguz
·
94d
The statement by @tunguz constitutes public discourse as it engages in a debate about the future of AI, a significant public issue. The tone is somewhat sarcastic and dismissive, indicating a critique of Gary Marcus's prediction and Yann LeCun's critiques.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but the sarcastic tone could be seen as dismissive, which might indirectly harm the discourse by fostering a less respectful environment. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but the dismissive tone could be seen as not fully respecting the dignity of others involved in the conversation. [-1]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 seems to mock the predictions and critiques of others. [-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 uses a sarcastic tone which can be seen as a personal attack rather than a substantive critique. [-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.
- The statement upholds the principle of free speech but does not use the platform responsibly or with integrity, as it leans towards sarcasm and dismissiveness rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.