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

151–160 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#151

Post by pjc50 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #147
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.

A core problem with humans, or perhaps it's not even a problem, just something that takes a long time to recognize, is that they complain and hate on something that they continue to spend money on. Not like food or clothing, but stuff like DLC content, streaming services, and LLMs.

Usually different people. Or, in the case of LLMs, they're not given a no option, or it's carefully hidden.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#152

Post by cortic »

gilrain wrote: post #129
cortic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having listened to some the new AI generated songs on utube, looks like they might be better at being sensitive humans than we are as well..

Where do you imagine they copied those human sensitivities from? The weather?

The same place as humans do, other humans.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#153

Post by cortic »

gloosx wrote: post #116
cortic wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>Create a test for intelligence that we can pass better than AI Easy? The best LLMs score 40% on Butter-Bench [1], while the mean human score is 95%. LLMs struggled the most with multi-step spatial planning and social understanding. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.21860v1

That is really interesting; Though i suspect its just a effect of differing training data, humans are to a larger degree trained on spacial data, while LLMs are trained to a larger degree on raw information and text.

Still it may be lasting limitation if robotics don't catch up to AI anytime soon.

Don't know what to make of the Safety Risks test, threatening to power down AI in order to manipulate it, and most act like we would and comply. fascinating.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#154

Post by latexr »

closewith wrote: post #148
latexr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dan clearly references how people misunderstand not only the comment (“he didn't mean the software. He meant their YC application”) but also the whole interaction (“He wasn't being a petty nitpicker—he was earnestly trying to help, and you can see in how sweetly he replied to Drew there that he genuinely wanted them to succeed”). So yes, it is the opposite of why people link to it (which is a judgement I’m making, I’…

The comment isn't infamous because it was petty or nitpicking. It's because the comment was so poorly communicated and because the author was so profoundly out-of-touch with the average person that they had lost all perspective. It's why it caught the zeitgeist at the time and why it's still apropos in this conversation now.

> It's because the comment was so poorly communicated and because the author was so profoundly out-of-touch with the average person that they had lost all perspective.

None of those things are true. Which is the point I’m making. Go read the original conversation. All of it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Don’t skip Brandon’s reply.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479

It is absurd to claim that someone who quickly understood the explanation, learned from it, conceded where they were wrong, is somehow “profoundly out-of-touch” and “lost all perspective”. It’s the exact opposite.

I agree with Dan that we’d be lucky if all conversations were like that.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#155

Post by [deleted] »

godelski wrote: post #119
charcircuit wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> the breadth of knowledge knowledge != intelligence If knowledge == intelligence then Google and Wikipedia are "smarter" than you and the AGI problem has been solved for several decades.

[deleted]

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#156

Post by turtlesdown11 »

sejje wrote: post #136
ptx wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

have you ever tried examining the sources? they actually just invent many "sources" when requested to provide sources

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#157

Post by closewith »

latexr wrote: post #154
closewith wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment isn't infamous because it was petty or nitpicking. It's because the comment was so poorly communicated and because the author was so profoundly out-of-touch with the average person that they had lost all perspective. It's why it caught the zeitgeist at the time and why it's still apropos in this conversation now.

> It's because the comment was so poorly communicated and because the author was so profoundly out-of-touch with the average person that they had lost all perspective. None of those things are true. Which is the point I’m making. Go read the original conversation. All of it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 Don’t skip Brandon’s reply. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479 It is absurd to claim that someo…

I think you should take your own advice and re-read the conversation without your pre-conceived conclusion.

Ironically your own overly verbose and aggressive comments here fall into the same trap.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#158

Post by gambiting »

antonvs wrote: post #102
gambiting wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, it's kinda terrifying how this line of thinking is spreading even on HN. AI as we have it now is just a turbocharged autocomplete, with a really good information access. It's not smart, or dumb, or anything "human" .

Do you think your own language processing abilities are significantly different from autocomplete with information access? If so, why?

I hate these kinds of questions where you try to imply it's actually the same thing as what our brains are doing. Stop it. I think it would be an affront to your own intelligence to entertain this as a serious question, so I will not.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#159

Post by idopmstuff »

> But when they do that, Draft One erases the initial draft, and with it any evidence of what portions of the report were written by AI and what portions were written by an officer. 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."

This seems solvable by passing a law that makes the officer legally responsible for the report as if he had written it. He doesn't get to use this excuse in the courtroom and it gets stricken from the record if he tries. That honestly seems like a better solution than storing the original AI-generated version, because that can reinforce the view that AI wrote it to jurors, even if the officer reviewed it and decided it was correct at the time.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#160

Post by jfreds »

idopmstuff wrote: post #159

> But when they do that, Draft One erases the initial draft, and with it any evidence of what portions of the report were written by AI and what portions were written by an officer. 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 wrot…

Yeah this seems like an obvious solution, which axon ought to be on board with since it protects them.

When juniors use the excuse “oh Claude wrote that” in a PR, I tell them if the PR has their name on it, they wrote it - and their PRs are part of their performance review. This is no different

Post reply on HN