In reply to:
Karly Kingsley
@karlykingsley
·
1d
The statement references a specific legislative bill (CA SB-1047) and a political figure (Newsom), suggesting a comparison or parallel to a discussion about AI regulation in Connecticut. This indicates engagement with public policy and governance issues, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions, as it simply references a legislative bill and a political figure.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does contribute to a broader discussion on AI regulation.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, maintaining a focus on policy discussion. [+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 principles by responsibly engaging in a discussion about public policy. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.