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

51–60 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#51

Post by solumunus »

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.

Having knowledge is not exactly the same as being smart though is it.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#52

Post by throw-12-16 »

nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote: post #35
jondwillis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cmon tell us, Mr. Rammstein’s throwaway, which much-superior country is it?!

He wont tell you. If he did he would have to admit he lives in a police state or martial law.

Misery loves company

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#54

Post by throwuxiytayq »

opan wrote: post #42
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.

It's pretty similar to looking something up with a search engine, mashing together some top results + hallucinating a bit, isn't it? The psychological effects of the chat-like interface + the lower friction of posting in said chat again vs reading 6 tabs and redoing your search, seems to be the big killer feature. The main "new" info is often incorrect info. If you could get the full page text of every url on the fir…

> If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations.

Curiously, literally nobody on earth uses this workflow.

People must be in complete denial to pretend that LLM (re)search engines can’t be used to trivially save hours or days of work. The accuracy isn’t perfect, but entirely sufficient for very many use cases, and will arguably continue to improve in the near future.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#55

Post by fzeroracer »

throwuxiytayq wrote: post #54
opan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty similar to looking something up with a search engine, mashing together some top results + hallucinating a bit, isn't it? The psychological effects of the chat-like interface + the lower friction of posting in said chat again vs reading 6 tabs and redoing your search, seems to be the big killer feature. The main "new" info is often incorrect info. If you could get the full page text of every url on the fir…

> If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations. Curiously, literally nobody on earth uses this workflow. People must be in complete denial to pretend that LLM (re)search engines can’t be used to trivially save hours or days of work. The accu…

The only way LLM search engines save time is if you take what it says at face value as truth. Otherwise you still have to fact check whatever it spews out which is the actual time consuming part of doing proper research.

Frankly I've seen enough dangerous hallucinations from LLM search engines to immediately discard anything it says.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#56

Post by d1sxeyes »

> 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 (on objection).

It would be an interesting legal experiment to have an officer using this system swear to which portions they wrote themselves, and attempt to have all the rest of the testimony disallowed as hearsay.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#57

Post by taneq »

intended wrote: post #18

> In July of this year, EFF published a two-part report on how Axon designed Draft One to defy transparency. Police upload their body-worn camera’s audio into the system, the system generates a report that the officer is expected to edit, and then the officer exports the report. 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 wh…

Does the officer not take full ownership of the report once they edit it? If they got an intern to write a report and then they signed off on it, they’d be responsible, right?

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#58

Post by throwuxiytayq »

fzeroracer wrote: post #55
throwuxiytayq wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you could get the full page text of every url on the first page of ddg results and dump it into vim/emacs where you can move/search around quickly, that would probably be similarly as good, and without the hallucinations. Curiously, literally nobody on earth uses this workflow. People must be in complete denial to pretend that LLM (re)search engines can’t be used to trivially save hours or days of work. The accu…

The only way LLM search engines save time is if you take what it says at face value as truth. Otherwise you still have to fact check whatever it spews out which is the actual time consuming part of doing proper research. Frankly I've seen enough dangerous hallucinations from LLM search engines to immediately discard anything it says.

Of course you have to fact check - but verification is much faster and easier than searching from scratch.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#59

Post by moffkalast »

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.

I agree. A programmer has to take responsibility for the generated code they push, and so do police officers for the reports they file. Using a keyboard does not absolve you of typos, it's your responsibility to proofread and correct, this is no different, just a lot more advanced.

Of course the problem is also that police often operates without any real oversight and covers up more misconduct than workers in an under-rug sweeping factory. But that's another issue.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#60

Post by roenxi »

Marha01 wrote: post #45
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 Well, in many cases they might be right..

As far as I can tell from poking people on HN about what "AGI" means, there might be a general belief that the median human is not intelligent. Given that the current batch of models apparently isn't AGI I'm struggling to see a clean test of what AGI might be that a human can pass.
Post reply on HN