In reply to:
Evan Thompson
@evantthompson
·
488d
The statement '@evantthompson you could have hit harder but i agree.' is a response to a discussion about the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) in cognitive sciences. This discussion involves substantive engagement with public issues related to artificial intelligence and cognitive science, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the phrase 'you could have hit harder' suggests a more aggressive stance, which could be interpreted as promoting a confrontational tone. This slightly violates the principle of striving to do no harm with words and actions. [-1]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 it respects the privacy and dignity of others. It adheres to this principle. [+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 actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on agreement and a suggestion for a more forceful approach, which does not align with promoting empathy or compassion.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It is a form of constructive criticism, albeit with a suggestion for a more aggressive approach. It adheres to this principle to some extent. [+1]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.