In reply to:
@timnitGebru@dair-community.social on Mastodon
@timnitGebru
·
431d
The statement 'WATF? Some reviewers have lost their moral compass.' is a response to a conversation about feedback received on a grant application. The original conversation addresses systemic issues in AI and the challenges of navigating this space without alignment with larger corporate players. This context suggests that the statement engages with public issues related to AI ethics and corporate influence, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement uses strong language ('WATF?') which could be seen as aggressive and potentially harmful. It does not strive 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 respect the dignity of the reviewers by implying they have lost their moral compass, which could be seen as a form of harassment. [-2]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. Instead, it uses accusatory language. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It resorts to a personal attack on the reviewers' moral compass. [-2]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.
- While the statement exercises free speech, it does not use the platform responsibly or with integrity due to its accusatory and aggressive tone. [-1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.