Reposted by Gary Marcus
The statement engages in public discourse by discussing the implications of state laws on AI models and the potential legal challenges by tech companies. It critiques the balance between protecting children online and the interests of tech companies, suggesting that companies may view any regulation as burdensome.
- The statement does not directly harm others but implies criticism of tech companies' potential actions.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on policy critique rather than personal attacks.Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding of the potential conflict between child protection laws and tech interests, though it could be more empathetic.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement critiques tech companies' likely legal strategies without engaging in personal attacks, maintaining a focus on policy. [+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 free speech to discuss public policy responsibly, though it could provide more balanced perspectives. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.