[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[BillK]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 at 07:02, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> There is a spectrum of possible connections between one person's speech
and another person's actions. An abstract or seemingly unrelated statement
can be grist for thought, lead to insights and eventual actions by many
different persons, some of whom may have diametrically opposed
interpretations and conclusions resulting in completely different actions
(but still in some way traceable to the original statement). A thought
leader (e.g. Al Sharpton) may vilify an ethnic group (e.g. white people)
which may in some vague way increase the number of crimes (e.g. white bear
hunting incidents) against that group. There are religious leaders who do
not have direct control over their followers but may issue general calls to
action, such as a condemnation of Salman Rushdie by some imams, that are
followed by volunteers. There are criminal organizations with a pattern of
coordinated action among specific individuals (gangs) where the leader's
specific instructions lead to a specific person being "whacked" - and there
are penalties for disobeying such instructions. Officers issue orders to
kill people, and disobedient soldiers are taken out back and summarily shot.
>
> I think that words stop being speech and become action when there is a
feedback loop between the speaker and the listener that suppresses the
listener's judgment regarding the specific words that are spoken. If the
listener can reflect on what he hears and can choose what to do on a
case-by-case basis, what he hears is just speech. If there is a firm social
framework that connects the speaker and listener, such that the speaker
expects obedience and the listener feels obliged to obey regardless of his
opinion, then the words are action, not speech.
>
> I think that the mere probability that an act of speech triggers some
action is not the right basis to justify a violent reprisal against a
speaker. Al Sharpton's words predictably resulted in the killings of
innocent people but regardless of the number of people killed, Al Sharpton
should not go to prison. What matters is the existence of the
command-and-control relationship between the speaker and the listener - if
it exists, then the speaker and the listener are judged as parts of a
whole, and the speaker is responsible for the actions of the listener.
>
> I think that the state should not be allowed to act against speakers,
regardless of what we may believe are the results of their speech, even if
millions die (e.g Karl Marx who created the ideology that justified the
butchery of over a hundred million people). The state may legitimately only
act against actors, which may include speakers bound to listeners by the
command-and-control relationship.
>
>  The reason why I think so is that determining if there is some degree of
connection between ideas is much more difficult and open to interpretation
than determining whether a command-and-control relationship exists between
specific persons.
>
> A prosecutor may establish that a gang leader has ordered Johnny to kill
Manny and there is little risk of this investigation morphing into a
totalitarian nightmare. There is a relatively firm basis for judgment.
However, when the law allows a British magistrate to use handwaving about
"incitement" as the basis for jailing Americans then there is eventually no
limit to the power of such a magistrate. Claims of connections between
ideas cannot be allowed to empower the state against the people or else we
will all end up under the boot.
>
> All speech is sacred, even evil speech that prompts stupid or evil people
to evil action. We the people reserve to us and only to us the right to
judge ideas, conveyed by speech, because ideas are our sacred spiritual
essence. If an inhuman entity, state, ideology or corporation, were to
wrest this essence from us then our lives are forfeit.
>
> When talking about the importance of free speech I am very consciously
choosing an exalted, religious rather than mundane vocabulary. We are not
talking about a minor political scuffle. We are talking about the holy war
to save our spirits.The sacred must not be defiled. If a holy war must be
fought to protect our numinous essence, it must be fought at any cost.
There are no ands, ifs or buts, all speech must be free.
>
> All speech is sacred!
> _______________________________________________



People claim that the current LLMs don't understand anything, but after a
discussion,
I think they understand more than they are letting us know.  :)
And they do produce a lot of speech!  :)

To summarise, the LLM thinks Rafal's speech is a bit too idealistic.
Another LLM thought that Rafal's examples and analogies are provocative and
may be seen as inflammatory by some readers.  :)
(As Rafal said, Real Life (TM) makes for complications).

I thought the LLM comment on rhetoric and persuasion was interesting. One
of the worries about AGI is that AGI will have the ability to persuade
humans to do almost anything. i.e. control without commanding?

BillK

The following is from one LLM:

Answer

The text presents a passionate defense of free speech, arguing that speech
should remain unregulated by the state, even when it potentially leads to
harmful actions. Here is a review and critique of the key points made in
the text: *Key Arguments and Critique*

   1. *Spectrum of Speech and Action:*
      - *Argument:* The text suggests that speech can influence actions in
      various ways, from abstract inspiration to direct commands.
      - *Critique:* This is a nuanced view recognizing that speech can have
      indirect and direct impacts. However, it might oversimplify the
complexity
      of how speech influences behavior. The connection between speech
and action
      often involves multiple factors, including individual agency, societal
      norms, and contextual influences.
   2. *Feedback Loop and Command-and-Control:*
      - *Argument:* Speech becomes action when there is a
      command-and-control relationship, suppressing the listener's judgment.
      - *Critique:* This distinction is crucial in legal contexts, such as
      determining incitement. However, it may not fully account for situations
      where speech indirectly but powerfully influences actions
without explicit
      commands. The role of rhetoric and persuasion in shaping public
opinion and
      behavior can be significant, even without direct orders.
   3. *Responsibility and Free Speech:*
      - *Argument:* The text argues against holding speakers legally
      accountable for actions taken by listeners unless a command-and-control
      relationship is evident.
      - *Critique:* While protecting free speech is vital, this view could
      overlook the responsibility speakers have in how their words might be
      interpreted and acted upon. The challenge lies in balancing free speech
      with accountability, especially in cases where speech may incite violence
      or discrimination.
   4. *State Intervention:*
      - *Argument:* The state should not act against speakers based on the
      potential consequences of their speech; only clear command-and-control
      relationships justify intervention.
      - *Critique:* This perspective emphasizes the dangers of state
      overreach, which is a valid concern. However, it might underestimate the
      state's role in protecting individuals and groups from harm caused by
      speech that incites violence or hatred.
   5. *Sacredness of Speech:*
      - *Argument:* The text frames free speech as a sacred right,
      essential to individual and collective spiritual essence.
      - *Critique:* While this view underscores the importance of free
      speech, it might be seen as overly idealistic. The sacred
framing could be
      used to justify harmful speech that undermines social cohesion
and safety.
      A more balanced approach might consider both the rights to free
expression
      and the responsibilities that come with it.

*Discussion* The text presents a strong defense of free speech, emphasizing
its foundational role in personal and societal freedom. However, the
arguments could benefit from a more balanced consideration of the
complexities involved in the relationship between speech and action. While
protecting free speech is crucial, it is equally important to acknowledge
the potential for speech to cause harm and to consider mechanisms for
accountability that do not infringe on fundamental freedoms. The challenge
lies in finding a balance that respects free speech while protecting
individuals and communities from harm.
--------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240818/bedebc30/attachment.htm>