Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Police Reports: Year in Review

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#131

Post by latexr »

cortic wrote: post #103
krainboltgreene wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, what are we supposed to do with people who think the above?

>ChatGPT (o3): Scored 136 on the Mensa Norway IQ test in April 2025 If you don't want to believe it, you need to change the goal posts; Create a test for intelligence that we can pass better than AI.. since AI is also better at creating test than us maybe we could ask AI to do it, hang on.. >Is there a test that in some way measures intelligence, but that humans generally test better than AI? Answer:Thinking, Somethi…

The validity of IQ tests as a measure of broad intelligence has been in question for far longer than LLMs have existed. And if it’s not a proper test for humans, it’s not a proper test to compare humans to anything else, be it LLMs or chimps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Validity...

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#132

Post by Verdex »

dataflow wrote: post #109
futuraperdita wrote: post #16

What worries me is that _a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves_ and anthropmorphize them into a sort of human-exact intelligence. The worst-case scenario of Utah's law is that when the disclaimer is added that the report is generated by AI, enough jurists begin to associate that with "likely more correct than not".

One problem here is "smarter" is an ambiguous word. I have no problem believing the average LLM has more knowledge than my brain; if that's what "smarter" means, them I'm happy to believe I'm stupid. But I sure doubt an LLM's ability to deduce or infer things, or to understand its own doubts and lack of knowledge or understanding, better than a human like me.

Yeah my thought is that you wouldn't trust a brain surgeon who has read every paper on brain surgery ever written but who has never touched a scalpel.

Similarly, the claim is that ~90% of communication is nonverbal, so I'm not sure I would trust a negotiator who has seen all of written human communication but never held a conversation.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#133

Post by [deleted] »

theoreticalmal wrote: post #126
kylecazar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just my circle, but anecdotally most of the non-CS folks I know have developed a strong anti-AI bias. In a very outspoken way. If anything, I think they'd consider AI's involvement as a strike against the prosecution if they were on a jury.

Why do people in your circle not like AI? I have similar a experience about friends and family not liking AI, but usually it’s due to water and energy reasons, not because of an issue with the model reasoning

[deleted]

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#134

Post by saghm »

theoreticalmal wrote: post #126
kylecazar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just my circle, but anecdotally most of the non-CS folks I know have developed a strong anti-AI bias. In a very outspoken way. If anything, I think they'd consider AI's involvement as a strike against the prosecution if they were on a jury.

Why do people in your circle not like AI? I have similar a experience about friends and family not liking AI, but usually it’s due to water and energy reasons, not because of an issue with the model reasoning

If your circle has any artists in it, chances are they'll also have a very negative perception, although influenced heavily by the proliferation of AI-generated art.

At least personally, I've seen basically three buckets of opinions from non-technical people on AI. There's a decent-sized group of people who loathe anything to do with it due to issues you've mentioned, the art issue I mentioned, or other specific things that overall add up to the point that they think it's a net harm to society, a decent-sized group of people who basically never think about it at all or go out of their way to use anything related to it, and then a small group of people who claim to be fully aware of the limitations and consider themselves quite rational but then will basically ask ChatGPT about literally anything and trust what it says without doing any additional research. It's the last group that I'm personally most concerned about because I've yet to find any effective way of getting them to recognize the cognitive dissonance (although sometimes at least I've been able to make enough of an impression that they stop trying to make ChatGPT a participant in every single conversation I have with them).

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#135

Post by saghm »

KronisLV wrote: post #117
futuraperdita wrote: post #16

What worries me is that _a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves_ and anthropmorphize them into a sort of human-exact intelligence. The worst-case scenario of Utah's law is that when the disclaimer is added that the report is generated by AI, enough jurists begin to associate that with "likely more correct than not".

> a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves I think the anthropomorphizing part is what messes with people. Is the autocomplete in my IDE smarter than I am? What about the search box on Google? What about a hammer or a drill? Yet, I will admit that most of the time I hear people complaining about how AI written code is worse than that produced by developers, but it just doesn't match my own experien…

I think you're spot on here. It's the same idea as scammers and con artists; people can be convinced of things that they might rationally reject if the language is persuasive enough. This isn't some new exploit in human behavior or an epidemic of people who are less intelligent than before; we've just never had to deal with the amount plausible enough sounding coherent human language being almost literally unlimited before. If we're lucky, people will manage to adapt and update their mental models to be less trustworthy of things that they can't verify (like how most of us hopefully don't need to be concerned their older relatives will transfer their bank account contents to benevolent foreign royalties with the expectation of being rewarded handsomely). It's hard to feel especially confident in this though given how much more open-ended the potential deceptions are (without even getting into the question of "intent" from the models or the creators of them).

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#136

Post by sejje »

ptx wrote: post #108
hombre_fatal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it gives you an answer and all you have to do is check its source. Often you don’t have to do that since you have jogged your memory. Versus finding the answer by clicking into the first few search results links and scanning text that might not have the answer.

As I said, how are you going to check the source when LLMs can't provide sources? The models, as far as I know, don't store links to sources along with each piece of knowledge. At best they can plagiarize a list of references from the same sources as the rest of the text, which will by coincidence be somewhat accurate.

LLMs provide sources every time I ask them.

They do it by going out and searching, not by storing a list of sources in their corpus.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#137

Post by saghm »

charcircuit wrote: post #37
futuraperdita wrote: post #16

What worries me is that _a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves_ and anthropmorphize them into a sort of human-exact intelligence. The worst-case scenario of Utah's law is that when the disclaimer is added that the report is generated by AI, enough jurists begin to associate that with "likely more correct than not".

AI is smarter than everyone already. Seriously, the breadth of knowledge the AI possesses has no human counterpart.

Even if we were going to accept the premise that total knowledge is equivalent to intelligence (which is silly, as sibling comments have pointed out), shouldn't accuracy also come into play? AI also says a lot more obviously wrong things than the average person, so how do you weight that against the purported knowledge? You could answer yes or no randomly to any arbitrary question about whether something is true and approximate a 50% accuracy rate with an evenly distributed pool of questions, but that's obviously not proof that you know everything. I don't think the choice of where to draw the line on "how often can you be wrong and have it still matter" is as easy as you're implying, or that everyone will necessarily agree on where it lies (even if we all agree that 50% correctness is obviously way too low).

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#138

Post by sejje »

Ekaros wrote: post #67
eterevsky wrote: post #40

I think whether any text is written with the help of AI is not the main issue. The real issue is that for texts like police reports a human still has to take full responsibility for its contents. If we preserve this understanding, than the question of which texts are generated by AI becomes moot.

Sadly justice system is a place where responsibility does not happen. It is not a system where you make one mistake and you are to prison. Instead everyone but the victims of the system are protected and colluded with. More you punish the victims better you make out.

By the end of your paragraph, you decided that criminals are victims.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#139

Post by sejje »

zmgsabst wrote: post #61
d1sxeyes wrote: post #56

> That means that if an officer is caught lying on the stand – as shown by a contradiction between their courtroom testimony and their earlier police report – they could point to the contradictory parts of their report and say, “the AI wrote that.” Normally, if a witness (e.g. a police officer) were found to be recounting something written by a third party, it would be considered hearsay and struck from the record (o…

I’d suspect the other direction: Police unions get LLMs classified as some kind of cognitive aid, so it becomes discrimination to ban them in school or the workplace.

"Losing access to LLMs hurts minorities the hardest, with job performance suffering compared to their cis white male peers..."

If they use this angle, it's a shoo-in

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#140

Post by thunderfork »

sejje wrote: post #138
Ekaros wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly justice system is a place where responsibility does not happen. It is not a system where you make one mistake and you are to prison. Instead everyone but the victims of the system are protected and colluded with. More you punish the victims better you make out.

By the end of your paragraph, you decided that criminals are victims.

Everyone the policing system interacts with is not only a convinced criminal, but convicted justly, yeah? That's what you actually believe?
Post reply on HN