Gary Marcus

The statement by @GaryMarcus contrasts the nature of discussions in AI with those in politics, suggesting that people are more likely to change their minds in AI due to respect for data, whereas in politics, people rarely change their minds regardless of the data. The tone is somewhat critical of political discourse, implying a lack of rationality or openness to evidence in political discussions.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement does not directly cause harm but implies a negative view of political discourse, which could be seen as dismissive.
2. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The statement promotes understanding and respect for data in AI but is critical of political discourse, which may not foster empathy or compassion towards those involved in politics. [-1]
3. 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 of political discourse but could be seen as a generalization that might not encourage open dialogue.