<div dir="ltr"><div>On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 at 07:02, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</div><div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default">></div></div>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> 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.<br>><br>> All speech is sacred!<br>> _______________________________________________<br><br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>People claim that the current LLMs don't understand anything, but after a discussion, <br></div><div>I think they understand more than they are letting us know. :) <br></div><div>And they do produce a lot of speech! :)</div><br><div>To summarise, the LLM thinks Rafal's speech is a bit too idealistic.</div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Another LLM thought that Rafal's</span> examples and analogies are provocative and may be seen as inflammatory by some readers.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> :)<br></span></div><div>(As Rafal said, Real Life (TM) makes for complications).</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default">I thought the LLM comment on <span><span>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?</span></span></div></div><br>BillK<br><br><div>The following <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">is</span> from <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">one</span> LLM:</div><div><div><div><div><div color="super"><div><br></div><div>Answer</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="auto"><div><div><span>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:</span>
<h2><b>Key Arguments and Critique</b></h2>
<ol><li><span>
</span><span><span><b>Spectrum of Speech and Action:</b></span></span><span>
</span><span><ul><li><span><b>Argument:</b></span><span> The text suggests that speech can influence actions in various ways, from abstract inspiration to direct commands.</span></li><li><span><b>Critique:</b></span><span> 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.</span></li></ul></span><span>
</span></li><li><span>
</span><span><span><b>Feedback Loop and Command-and-Control:</b></span></span><span>
</span><span><ul><li><span><b>Argument:</b></span><span> Speech becomes action when there is a command-and-control relationship, suppressing the listener's judgment.</span></li><li><span><b>Critique:</b></span><span> 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.</span></li></ul></span><span>
</span></li><li><span>
</span><span><span><b>Responsibility and Free Speech:</b></span></span><span>
</span><span><ul><li><span><b>Argument:</b></span><span> The text
argues against holding speakers legally accountable for actions taken by
listeners unless a command-and-control relationship is evident.</span></li><li><span><b>Critique:</b></span><span> 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.</span></li></ul></span><span>
</span></li><li><span>
</span><span><span><b>State Intervention:</b></span></span><span>
</span><span><ul><li><span><b>Argument:</b></span><span> The state
should not act against speakers based on the potential consequences of
their speech; only clear command-and-control relationships justify
intervention.</span></li><li><span><b>Critique:</b></span><span> 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.</span></li></ul></span><span>
</span></li><li><span>
</span><span><span><b>Sacredness of Speech:</b></span></span><span>
</span><span><ul><li><span><b>Argument:</b></span><span> The text frames free speech as a sacred right, essential to individual and collective spiritual essence.</span></li><li><span><b>Critique:</b></span><span> 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.</span></li></ul></span><span>
</span></li></ol>
<h2><b>Discussion</b></h2>
<span>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.</span></div><div><span><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">--------------------------------</span><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>