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

161–170 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#161

Post by jfreds »

impossiblefork wrote: post #142
roenxi wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why they'd struggle, I'm not sure what you're trying to ask the model to do. What type of analysis are you expecting? If the model is supposed to represent the views expressed that would be a summary. If you aren't asking it for a summary what do you want it to do? Do you literally mean you want the model to perform conversational analysis (ie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_analysis#Method )?

Usually I use the format "Analyze the following ...". For simple discussions this is fine. For complex discussions, especially when people get into conflict-- whether that conflict is really complex or not, problems usually result. The big problems are that the model will misquote or misrepresent views-- attempted paraphrases that actually change the meaning, the ordinary hallucinations etc. For stories the confusion…

Your points about misquotes and language troubles are very valid and interesting. But a word of caution on your prompt: you’re asking a lot of the word “analyze” here; if the LLM responded that the thread had 15 comments by 10 unique authors, and a total of 2000 characters, I would classify that as a completely satisfactory answer (assuming the figures were correct) based on the query

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#162

Post by jfreds »

andrepd wrote: post #104
logicprog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it supports their particular point, but Machine Decision is Not Final seems like a very cool and interesting look at China's culture around AI: https://www.urbanomic.com/book/machine-decision-is-not-final...

In the West we have autonomous systems to commit genocide, detecting and murdering "enemy combatants" at scale, where "enemy combatant" is defined as "male between the ages of 15 and 55". Sometimes I'm not so sure about any so-called moral superiority.

Citation? Not saying you’re wrong but my time in defense left me very much with the opposite opinion (radar target acquisitions had to be approved by a human, always)

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#163

Post by design2203 »

gambiting wrote: post #158
antonvs wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#164

Post by Verdex »

saghm wrote: post #135
KronisLV wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My belief is that the function of a story is to provide social cover for our actions. Other people need to evaluate us (both in the moment and after the dust has settled) and while careful data analysis can do the job, who has time for that crap.

As such the story can be completely divorced from reality. The important thing is that the story is a good one. A good story transfers your social cover for yourself to your supervisor. They don't have to understand what you did and explain why it's okay that it failed. They just have to understand the story structure that you gave them. Listen to this great story, it's not my report's fault for this failure, and it's certainly not mine, just bad luck.

Additionally, the good (and sufficiently original) story is a gift because your supervisor can reuse it for new scenarios.

The good salesman gives you the story you need to excuse the purchase that will enable you to succeed. The bad salesman sells you on a story that you need a frivolous purchase.

And this is why job hoping is "bad". Eventually the incompetent employee uses up all of their good stories and management catches onto their act. It's embedded into our language. "Oh we've all heard this story before." The job hopper leaves just as their good stories are exhausted and can start over fresh at the new employer.

All of this in response to

> 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

Yes, if we're lucky that is what will happen. But I fear that we're going to have to transition to a very low trust society for that to happen.

Reliance on the story is reliant on the trust that someone has done the real work. Distrust of the story implies a wider scale distrust in others and institutions.

Maybe we can add a tradition of annotating our stories with arguments and proofs. Although I've spent a two decade career desperately trying to give highly technical people arguments and proofs and I've seen stories completely unmoored from reality win out every time.

Optimistically, I'm just really bad at it and it's actually a natural transition. Pessimistically, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#165

Post by design2203 »

piva00 wrote: post #112
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…

To be intelligent is to realise that any test for intelligence is at best a proxy for some parts of it. There's no objective way to measure intelligence as a whole, we can't even objectively define intelligence.

I believe intelligence is difficult to pin down in words but easy to spot intuitively - and so are deltas in intelligence.

E.g watch a Steve jobs interview and a Sam Altman one (at the same age). The difference in the mode of articulation, simplicity in communication, obsession over details etc are huge. This is what superior intelligence to me looks like - you know it when you see it.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#166

Post by antonvs »

gambiting wrote: post #158
antonvs wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#167

Post by antonvs »

design2203 wrote: post #163
gambiting wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#169

Post by gambiting »

antonvs wrote: post #166
gambiting wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

My thoughts on this are as serious as it gets - AI in it's current state is no more than clever statistics. I will not be comparing how my own brain functions to what is effectively a linear algebra machine, as it's insulting to the intelligence of everyone here - what kind of serious thought would you like to have here, exactly?

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#170

Post by andrepd »

jfreds wrote: post #162
andrepd wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the West we have autonomous systems to commit genocide, detecting and murdering "enemy combatants" at scale, where "enemy combatant" is defined as "male between the ages of 15 and 55". Sometimes I'm not so sure about any so-called moral superiority.

Citation? Not saying you’re wrong but my time in defense left me very much with the opposite opinion (radar target acquisitions had to be approved by a human, always)

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

There's an overview on Wikipedia too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...

Post reply on HN