Gary Marcus

The statement by @GaryMarcus constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about the understanding and application of a technical term, likely related to artificial intelligence or cognitive science, and its implications for predictions in the field. The tone is defensive and challenges the previous assertion made by @tylercowen, aiming to defend the accuracy of past predictions.

1. Principle 1:

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

   The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a direct challenge but remains within the bounds of academic debate. [+1]
2. Principle 2:

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

   The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
3. Principle 3:

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

   The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on defending a position rather than fostering mutual understanding.
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 engages in constructive criticism by asking for specific evidence of failed predictions. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+2]
5. Principle 5:

   I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.

   The statement does not acknowledge or correct any mistakes, but it does not appear to contain any mistakes that need correction.
6. Principle 7:

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

   The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity by engaging in a substantive debate. [+1]