In reply to:
Carlos E. Perez
@IntuitMachine
·
353d
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
353d
The statement engages in a public discourse about the future of AI, specifically discussing the potential commodification of large language models (LLMs) and its implications. The tone is speculative and somewhat critical, suggesting a potential negative outcome (AI winter) due to the commodification of AI technologies.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but raises concerns about the future of AI, which can be seen as a cautionary perspective rather than harmful.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to the discussion by highlighting potential risks.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the idea that AI commodification is beneficial, without resorting to personal attacks. [+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.
- The statement upholds free speech by contributing to a public debate on AI commodification and its potential consequences. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.