Gary Marcus

The statement '@tunguz taking no prisoners' in response to '@tunguz: OpenAI is the Theranos of AI' does not constitute public discourse. The original statement by @tunguz might be considered public discourse as it makes a critical comparison between OpenAI and Theranos, a company known for its fraudulent activities. However, the response 'taking no prisoners' is more of a lighthearted or conversational remark that does not substantively engage with the public issue or debate raised by the original statement.

1. Principle 1:

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

   The statement does not cause harm but does not contribute to the discourse either.
2. 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 engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
3. Principle 3:

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

   The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion.
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 does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue.
5. Principle 5:

   I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.

   The statement does not acknowledge or correct mistakes.
6. Principle 6:

   I will use my influence for the betterment of society.

   The statement does not use influence for societal betterment.
7. Principle 7:

   I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.

   The statement does not uphold or violate free speech principles.