In reply to:
Barbara Rich
@BarbaraRich_law
·
254d
The statement by @BarbaraRich_law and the subsequent reply by Gary Marcus engage in a public discourse about the failures in legal education and media coverage concerning AI literacy and its implications in legal settings. The conversation addresses societal issues related to the legal profession's understanding of AI and the media's role in communicating AI's limitations.
- The statement does not cause harm but rather highlights a systemic issue in legal education and media reporting, aiming to bring awareness to these problems. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by discussing the importance of AI literacy and the consequences of its neglect in legal contexts. [+2]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the legal education system and media, 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 uses the author's influence to highlight important societal issues, aiming to improve AI literacy and media responsibility. [+2]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech principles by responsibly discussing public concerns about AI and legal education. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.