Gary Marcus

The statement by @mealreplacer, '1. Optics 2. A misguided sense that can simply patch all the holes with RLHF and the like,' constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the methods and motivations behind fine-tuning AI models. The tone is critical and analytical, aiming to question the effectiveness and reasoning behind certain AI training practices.

1. Principle 1:

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

   The statement does not appear to cause harm directly. It is a critique of AI training methods rather than a personal attack, so it aligns with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
2. Principle 3:

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

   The statement could be seen as promoting understanding by questioning the effectiveness of current AI training methods. However, it does not explicitly promote empathy or compassion. [+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 AI training practices. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, focusing instead on the methods and motivations behind AI fine-tuning. [+2]