Reposted by Gary Marcus
The statement by @MickeyShaughnes constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about the direction of AI development and its societal implications. The tone is critical and somewhat frustrated, indicating a disagreement with the prevailing direction in AI research and development. The intent is to highlight what the author perceives as a misguided focus on LLMs (Large Language Models) and to express frustration over being marginalized in the discourse.
- The statement does not appear to cause direct harm but expresses frustration, which could be seen as a minor violation of striving to do no harm.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, and respects the privacy and dignity of others.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; it is more focused on criticism.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, although it does imply that others have 'poor scientific judgement.'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 uses the author's influence to argue for a different direction in AI research, which can be seen as an attempt to better society.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform to express a critical viewpoint responsibly.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.