In reply to:
Jason H. Moore, PhD
@moorejh
·
503d
The statement and the conversation it is part of engage in a public discourse about the effectiveness of AI technology in summarizing information, which is a relevant societal issue. The tone of the statement is somewhat defensive, as the user is clarifying that they have already addressed the question about the algorithm in another reply. The conversation involves a critique of AI technology based on a government trial, which is a substantive public issue.
- The statement does not cause harm and is a clarification, so it aligns with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to the dialogue by providing clarification.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a point of contention, but it could be more effective if it included the link or more information directly.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.