Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@cwbussard @peterdrake I'm not disputing any of that. "Kill him" is the exact same as "whack him" is the exact same as "caramel malt him" if they establish the code is a real thing in a court of law.

But coded language is a very different game from uncoded implications/inferences.

The difference is that coded language is far more objective. You can prove it exists by showing a pattern of past usage.

Proving the intended meaning of an implication however, is essentially impossible (as you referred to) without some kind of sci-fi mind scanning device or an outright confession. There's a reason why 'implication' and 'inference' are different words for similar concepts; because they're subjective, and laws criminalizing subjective speech are ripe for abuse.

Personally, I agree with where the line is drawn and think it should be essentially impossible for the government to jail people for alleged implications.

That Trump knows exactly where the line is and how to stay on the right side of it is, I believe, no accident.

@cwbussard @peterdrake

> "'Now' seems to be implied along with 'kill her.'"

Except you're inferring both and you can't prosecute someone for unproven inferences.

> "A big problem with the term 'stochastic terrorism' is that it's vague. Depending on who's saying it, it may have some overlap with legally punishable 'incitement,'"

Every definition I know of lists vagueness as a hallmark of stochastic terrorism. And vagueness is incompatible with the term "directing" in the Brandenburg standard. There's a reason 'stochastic terrorism" is a different term than 'incitement'. One is a call to action; the other is not.

@theothersimo @kroyio Such as?

@gabrielesvelto Lots of stuff. But it's best at predicting things like mesh generation algorithms or common patterns like advanced grid/spatial collections.

Also, it can scaffold code like no other. If you want to use custom serialization (i.e. binarystream save/load functions) the AI can write those function perfectly for any object pretty reliably. Then you just fine-tune.

It can also be pretty good at identifying bugs in logic that conforms to standard formulas used in physics and linear algebra, which tends to be very dense and difficult-to-follow code.

@theothersimo @kroyio The standards are similar, I believe. But incitement needs to be a bit tighter because it's inherently unjust to punish someone for the actions of another unless you are very sure they are truly responsible.

@georgetakei He voted that the executive couldn't do so unilaterally, which is an important distinction. Congress holds the purse; they could enact relief. We don't want to further empower our President for fear of empowering a future dictator.

@MattFerrel @peterdrake @georgetakei I think the J6 commission laid out a pretty compelling argument that his speech on that day was incitement, yes.

But I think most of his speech does fall under stochastic terrorism. He actively seeks to demonize his opponents with fiery rhetoric, which is textbook stochastic terrorism.

@slcw Yep, like the 8 or 9 times DeSantis had his ass handed to him by the courts so far.

@peterdrake In theory, that example would depend on the tone of voice, but it certainly could qualify as stochastic terrorism. A key element is often using coded or vague language.

But it still wouldn't come close to criminal incitement.

@kroyio @georgetakei That's just blatantly wrong.

SCOTUS set the standard for incitement in Brandenburg v Ohio, which established a 4-prong test: To be considered incitement, the speech has to be (1) intended to, and (2) understood by a reasonable person to, direct others to commit (3) imminent (4) lawless action.

So, no, "any speech intended to prompt violence" is not the standard, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped spreading that false information.

Moreover, "stochastic terrorism" doesn't describe speech that's intended to prompt violence. Stochastic terrorism is about fanning the flames of hatred so that those with their own violent impulses act on them. It literally does not meet a single one of the four prongs of the Brandenburg test.

@peterdrake @georgetakei Incitement and stochastic terrorism are two different things. Incitement, in US law at least, requires a four-pronged test; the speech has to be (1) intended to, and (2) understood by a reasonable person to direct others to commit (3) imminent (4) lawless action.
Stochastic terrorism, on the other hand, is just fueling people's grievances until they act on their own violent impulses.

One is criminal. The other is protected speech.