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

61–70 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#61

Post by zmgsabst »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #56

> 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 (o…

I’d suspect the other direction:

Police unions get LLMs classified as some kind of cognitive aid, so it becomes discrimination to ban them in school or the workplace.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#62

Post by riedel »

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.

Yes. Allowing officers to blame AI creates a major accountability gap. Per e.g. the EU AI Act’s logic, if a human "edits" a draft, they must be held responsible and do not need to disclose the use of AI.

To ensure safety, those offerings must use premarket red teaming to eliminate biases in summarization. However, ethical safety also requires post-market monitoring, which is impossible if logs aren't preserved. Rather than focusing on individual cases, I think, we must demand systemic oversight in general and access for independent research (not only focussing on a specific technology)

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#63

Post by abelitoo »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #39
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.

Man, what are we supposed to do with people who think the above?

I'd do the same thing I'd do with anyone that has a different opinion than me: try my best to have an honest and open discussion with them to understand their point of view and get to the heart of why they believe said thing, without forcefully tearing apart their beliefs. A core part of that process is avoiding saying anything that could cause them to feel shame for believing something that I don't, even if I truly believe they are wrong, and just doing what I can to earnestly hear them out. The optional thing afterwards, if they seem open to it, is express my own beliefs in a way that's palatable and easily understood. Basically explain it in a language they understand, and in a way that we can think about and understand and discuss together, not taking offense to any attempts at questioning or poking holes in my beliefs because that is the discovery process imo for trying something new.

Online is a little trickier because you don't know if they're a dog. Well, now a days it's even harder, because they could also not have a fully developed frontal lobe, or worse, they could be a bot, troll, or both.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#65

Post by hopelite »

zmgsabst wrote: post #61
d1sxeyes wrote: post #56

> 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 (o…

I’d suspect the other direction: Police unions get LLMs classified as some kind of cognitive aid, so it becomes discrimination to ban them in school or the workplace.

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 anything prior.

It’s going to be interesting to see the state propaganda against the bigots and evil bioists (or whatever the word smithing apparatchiks will devise) so want to bar the full equality in society of AI/robots who look just like you and me after all and also just want equal rights to love each other, and who are you to oppose others since we are all just individuals?

Shoot the messenger all you want, but it’s coming.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#66

Post by sixhobbits »

riedel wrote: post #62
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.

Yes. Allowing officers to blame AI creates a major accountability gap. Per e.g. the EU AI Act’s logic, if a human "edits" a draft, they must be held responsible and do not need to disclose the use of AI. To ensure safety, those offerings must use premarket red teaming to eliminate biases in summarization. However, ethical safety also requires post-market monitoring, which is impossible if logs aren't preserved. Rathe…

It should be treated kind of the same as writing a report after a glass of wine. Probably no one really cares but "sorry that doesn't count because I was intoxicated when I wrote that bit" isn't going to fly.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#67

Post by Ekaros »

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.

Sadly justice system is a place where responsibility does not happen. It is not a system where you make one mistake and you are to prison. Instead everyone but the victims of the system are protected and colluded with. More you punish the victims better you make out.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#68

Post by tialaramex »

lostnground wrote: post #27
BrenBarn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we need a greatly reduced standard of proof for officer misconduct, especially when it comes to consequences like just losing your job (as opposed to, e.g., jail time).

While I agree that officers should be accountable. More enforcement of them will not suddenly make them good officers. Other nations train their police for years prior to putting them into the thick of it. US police spend far less time studying, and it shows, in everything from de-escalation tactics to general legal understanding. If you create a pipeline to weed out bad officers, then there needs to be a pipeline pr…

AIUI US policing is descended from slave catching and strike breaking. Two activities which I think we'd say today are obviously bad.

In many European states their policing starts as town guards tasked with ensuring order. Order is, at least, not obviously bad.

So that's a philosophical difference in what these forces even think their purpose is.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#69

Post by tarsinge »

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 don’t understand the urgency to replace human work with AI. Why is every organization so eager about skipping the AI as an assistant step? Here there are already massive productivity gains in using the AI to create the draft of the report, it makes little economical to make it do the final version compared to the risk, maybe it’s just plain laziness? Same with developers, why is very organization wanting to leapfrog from humans write all the code to they don’t even read the generated code?

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#70

Post by xandrius »

solumunus wrote: post #51
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.

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

Although it helps immensely.
Post reply on HN