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

Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

#51

Post by oakinnagbe »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #9
embedding-shape wrote: post #3

> [...] he had intervened at forces that were deploying commercially available AI tools before they had been properly assessed [...] “All forces have got a good policy on the use of Copilot,” Murray said. “All forces will have a policy that says, ‘Check everything that it produces’.” Not only are they using AI before they've properly assessed them, they also end up using Copilot which must be one of the worse AIs cur…

> on top of all that, they hope to be able to rely on "Please review the outputs" which obviously isn't an actual solution here, of course people will get complacent and throw stuff over the wall whenever they can. This is honestly the fundamental problem of AI as I see it When we offload our work to a different person we can calibrate our expectations to our past experiences with that person. With AI the experience…

[flagged]

Re: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

#52

Post by recursivecaveat »

ajb wrote: post #32
kerabatsos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mindset must be that if you use AI (which I happen to advocate for) you are also responsible for the output, if you use the output publicly. AI is obviously very powerful if used responsibly - the human is responsible for it once it is used - however it’s used.

I appreciate the sentiment, but this is exactly like the expectation that people can be responsible for intervening when self-driving or driver-assistance goes wrong. Human brains are strongly driven to conserve energy. If nothing seems to be happening - when errors become less and less frequent - the more difficult it becomes to guarantee intervention, and the less practiced the human will be at doing so. I have wri…

Yeah, suppose a self-driving car is say twice as likely to crash as the average human (which could already be considered unfair since that includes like drunk humans and people who should've already lost their license). That means to monitor it's driving you will need to wait 25,000 hours until an accident occurs. That's ~ 12 straight years of a 9-5 spent sitting, doing absolutely nothing, just watching in a state of theoretical vigilance.

Re: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

#53

Post by boelboel »

boelboel wrote: post #25
echelon_musk wrote: post #2

At nearly £500 a year is an FT subscription worth it? Am I going to get invaluable stock tips that will cover the sub?!

It's worth it for me with the physical paper. I don't think you'll get any valuable tips but the reporting is moderately better than other papers. Gives me something to do instead of immediately picking up my phone.

I only pay 25-30 a month though, wouldn't be worth it at 50.

Re: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

#54

Post by WickyNilliams »

logifail wrote: post #41
Aurornis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “All forces will have a policy that says, ‘Check everything that it produces’.” Everyone I talk to (including outside of tech) is going through this phase at their companies. It’s not working. Checking the output seems like a simple request, but the question becomes: Check against what? If the police are making a document that sources from another report that another officer used AI to produce from their notes whic…

> Checking the output seems like a simple request, but the question becomes: Check against what? A colleague of mine circulated "minutes" from a meeting last week, there were only three of us in the meeting (one external service provider, my colleague + me). There were several items on the "minutes" which I didn't recall being discussed, so I asked him if he'd had AI help, he said AI was filling in the gaps based on…

Even if you have some AI transcribe in real time, they introduce the kind of subtle mistake - like negating a statement - that is plausible, but undetectable in retrospect without the accompanying audio.

I often review the transcriptions that zoom produces out of curiosity, and this happens constantly. Makes them essentially useless as a statement of record

Re: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

#55

Post by WickyNilliams »

kerabatsos wrote: post #10
embedding-shape wrote: post #3

> [...] he had intervened at forces that were deploying commercially available AI tools before they had been properly assessed [...] “All forces have got a good policy on the use of Copilot,” Murray said. “All forces will have a policy that says, ‘Check everything that it produces’.” Not only are they using AI before they've properly assessed them, they also end up using Copilot which must be one of the worse AIs cur…

The mindset must be that if you use AI (which I happen to advocate for) you are also responsible for the output, if you use the output publicly. AI is obviously very powerful if used responsibly - the human is responsible for it once it is used - however it’s used.

Until case law establishes that people are in fact legally responsible for output, then it is just empty platitudes, I fear

Re: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements

#56

Post by iririririr »

ares623 wrote: post #43
iririririr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

excellent point. it is like saying computers in the 90s. remember how the bank giving your money to the wrong person was a crime? and then when "the computet" did it was just business as usual and you paid more for banking because now they had "computer fraud" insurance? same thing. cop deliver false report, jail (hah! i know). now, it was "the Ai". so no jail, they will go back and put rules for the cop to read or s…

All this, so people like us can do a job that wasn't that hard in the first place (and in fact was quite comfortable all things considered), just a little bit easier, for companies that are promising to lay us off for productivity gains that aren't even measurable.

my friend, jobs only matter in volume not quality.

why do you think every capital accumulation in the past caused "absentee landlords"? everyone wants the profit without even having to collect the rent.

Ai (or Bangladesh) doesn't have to do the work better than you, just deliver more X, where X is work output div capital input.

Post reply on HN