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

191–200 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#191

Post by roenxi »

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…

> Usually I use the format "Analyze the following ...".

It doesn't surprise me that you're getting nonsense, that is an ill-formed request. The AI can't fulfil it because it isn't asking it to do anything. I'm in the same boat as an AI would be, I can't tell what outcome you want. I'd probably interpret it as "summarise this conversation" if someone asked that of me, but you seem to agree that AI are good at summery tasks so that doesn't seem like it would be what you want. If I had my troll hat on I'd give you a frequency analysis of the letters and call it a day which is more passive-aggressive than I'd expect of the AI, they tend to just blather when they get a vague setup. They aren't psychic, it is necessary to give them instructions to carry out.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#192

Post by benatkin »

dannersy wrote: post #48
benatkin wrote: post #20

The experiments of AI agents sending emails to grown-ups are good I think – AIs are doing much more dangerous stuff like these AI Police Reports. I don't think making a fuss over every agent-sent email is going to cause other AI incursion into our society to slow down. The Police Report writer is a non-human partially autonomous participant like a K9 officer. It's wishful thinking that AIs aren't going to be set loos…

I'm curious about this claim. What about agents sending emails to each other is good?

Turing test type stuff. Having agents try to participate in the overall social community, by sending a cold email. The reason I think it's good is because with how AI is increasingly used a lot of different sorts of research is needed. A citizen could have their police report written by an AI without them opting in, just like Rob Pike could get a cold email.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#193

Post by verisimi »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #172
verisimi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there might be a general belief that the median human is not intelligent This is to deconstruct the question. I don't think it's even wrong - a lot of people are doing things, making decisions, living life perfectly normally, successfully even, without applying intelligence in a personal way. Those with socially accredited 'intelligence' would be the worst offenders imo - they do not apply their intelligence person…

>knowing why you are doing what you are doing[...] Computers can only do an imitation of this sort of answer. People stand a chance of answering it. I'm not following. A computer's "why" is a written program, surely that is the most clear expression of its intent you could ask for?

A computer doesn't determine the why, it is programmed to do so. It doesn't determine meaning or value from whatever-it-is.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#194

Post by Dilettante_ »

verisimi wrote: post #193
Dilettante_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>knowing why you are doing what you are doing[...] Computers can only do an imitation of this sort of answer. People stand a chance of answering it. I'm not following. A computer's "why" is a written program, surely that is the most clear expression of its intent you could ask for?

A computer doesn't determine the why, it is programmed to do so. It doesn't determine meaning or value from whatever-it-is.

Did you mean it doesn't set its own goals? Or what did you mean by "determine the why" if not a stack trace of its motivations(which is to say, its programming)? Could you give an example of determinimg meaning or value?

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#195

Post by sejje »

thunderfork wrote: post #146
sejje wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not what I believe, I didn't say any of those words.

The person you replied to didn't say "criminals are victims", either, so comprehending your post requires some inference. Feel free to clarify what you did mean, it's a lot more helpful than insisting on what you didn't mean.

It's not helpful. You put a lot of words into my mouth, I deny them. I already made my point in my own words. I don't have to deny every position you make up for me.

If you read his comment, he refers to everyone going through the system as victims of the colluding judges and LEO. Almost none of them are. The victims are the people whom they committed crimes against, of course.

This isn't my position, it's just the language we use to describe reality.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#196

Post by sejje »

pyth0 wrote: post #171
sejje wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand it wrong. That's not where police come from.

If you want to make your comment useful, you could share some information about where you understand policing in America to have originated.

Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement.

American settlers got the idea from the same place they got the idea for laws. Their home countries.

Enforcing laws isn't an American invention, let's not be ridiculous.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#197

Post by hopelite »

inavida wrote: post #72
hopelite wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an aspect I had not considered in my assumptions that AI/robots will eventually go through the same/similar social justice process as all the other causes, i.e., women’s suffrage, racial equality, gay rights, etc. because it will ultimately and, arguably, more than all the other prior social justice causes célèbres, serve the ruling class that has risen to dominate through social justice causes far more than…

Cynical and fun to read but no. Too many parasites have already chewed their way to the empty heart of power of the post-war liberal system, and I think the next time it gets power at the highest levels in the US will be the end if it there. Maybe it will last another generation in Europe, but not long enough to see the scenario you describe play out.

It's not cynical at all. It's quite the opposite actually; an expression of the suicidal and pathological altruism that has caused the west to self-destruct through he guiding hand of psychopathic narcissistic charlatan leaders and con artists.

I am unsure how Europe will go, because there is still a possibility of a glimmer of hope, but frankly, that too is dimming extremely quickly with how systemic things really are, let alone how they are developing, the real vs expected trending towards pessimistic outcomes.

What you may be missing is that there is a possibility where your presumed resistance or rejection of AI and robotic equality is forced upon you one way or another; either you are forced to "arms race" adoption, or the superior external force foists subjugation to their AI/robotics dominance on you (a kind of 19th century Chinese/Japanese, Industrial Revolution comes knocking at the front door experience).

Unfortunately for us all, some things you are simply foolish to just ignore, reject/resist as if it will somehow just magically go away or ignore you too. The reality of the matter is that the psychopathic narcissistic tribe of people who control these obsessive, controlling, imposing forces care immensely about dominating and controlling you, even if you want to ignore them.... they will not ignore you, let alone leave you be until you are subjugated.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#198

Post by thunderfork »

sejje wrote: post #195
thunderfork wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you replied to didn't say "criminals are victims", either, so comprehending your post requires some inference. Feel free to clarify what you did mean, it's a lot more helpful than insisting on what you didn't mean.

It's not helpful. You put a lot of words into my mouth, I deny them. I already made my point in my own words. I don't have to deny every position you make up for me. If you read his comment, he refers to everyone going through the system as victims of the colluding judges and LEO. Almost none of them are. The victims are the people whom they committed crimes against, of course. This isn't my position, it's just the l…

You're putting words into the other user's mouth, though, by assuming they mean "everyone" and not just "the innocent proportion of accused people".

So this seems like a good place to take your own advice, right?

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#199

Post by sejje »

thunderfork wrote: post #198
sejje wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not helpful. You put a lot of words into my mouth, I deny them. I already made my point in my own words. I don't have to deny every position you make up for me. If you read his comment, he refers to everyone going through the system as victims of the colluding judges and LEO. Almost none of them are. The victims are the people whom they committed crimes against, of course. This isn't my position, it's just the l…

You're putting words into the other user's mouth, though, by assuming they mean "everyone" and not just "the innocent proportion of accused people". So this seems like a good place to take your own advice, right?

No, I responded to their comment as-is. It's you putting words in someone's mouth again, not I.

The way you can tell what they mean is this line: "More you punish the victims better you make out." Nobody in America thinks that judges make out for punishing actually-innocent people. That's not what "victims" means here.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#200

Post by verisimi »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #194
verisimi wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer doesn't determine the why, it is programmed to do so. It doesn't determine meaning or value from whatever-it-is.

Did you mean it doesn't set its own goals? Or what did you mean by "determine the why" if not a stack trace of its motivations(which is to say, its programming)? Could you give an example of determinimg meaning or value?

Yes, set its own goals. Here's an example - say you wanted to track your spending, you might create a spreadsheet to do so. The spreadsheet won't write itself. If you want, you could perhaps task an ai to monitor and track spending - but it doesn't care. It is the human that cares/feels/values whatever-it-is. Computers are not that type.

Is your position that humans are pretty mechanistic, and simply playing out their programming, like computers? And that they can provide a stacktrace for what they do?

If so, this is what I was getting at with my initial comment. Most people do not apply their intelligence personally - they are simply playing out the goals that we inserted into them (by parents, society). There are alternative possibilities, but it seems that most people's operational procedures and actions are not something they have considered or actively sought.

Post reply on HN