Reposted by Gary Marcus
The statement critiques Yann LeCun's suggestion that cultural content should be made available for AI training. It uses a sarcastic tone to express disagreement with the idea, implying that possession of cultural content does not equate to the right to use it for AI purposes. The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the ethical and policy implications of AI training data.
- The statement uses sarcasm, which could be seen as dismissive, potentially causing harm by undermining the seriousness of the discussion. This slightly violates the principle of doing no harm. [-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 respects the dignity of the person it addresses, adhering 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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on criticism without offering constructive dialogue or alternative solutions, slightly violating this principle. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism but does so in a sarcastic manner, which could be seen as a personal attack rather than constructive dialogue, slightly violating this principle. [-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.