Gary Marcus

The statement by @tunguz, 'OpenAI is the Theranos of AI,' constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue related to the credibility and impact of a major AI company. The subsequent replies, including the statement in question, are part of this public discourse as they contribute to the debate and discussion around this issue.

1. Principle 1:

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

   The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the comparison to Theranos, a company known for fraud, could be seen as harsh criticism. The reply in question acknowledges a disagreement but does not escalate the conflict, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm.
2. Principle 2:

   I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.

   The statement and the replies do not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. However, the initial comparison to Theranos could be seen as damaging to OpenAI's reputation, though it is framed as a critique rather than an attack on individuals. [-1]
3. Principle 3:

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

   The statement and the replies do not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. The reply in question shows a willingness to reconsider a position, which can be seen as a step towards constructive dialogue.
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 reply in question engages in constructive criticism by acknowledging a previous argument and showing openness to the possibility of being wrong. This aligns with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue and avoiding personal attacks. [+1]